Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-01-09
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 9, 2002 January10,2002 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the County Executive. Mr. Tucker welcomed Cub Scout Pack 114, Den 8, from Medwether Lewis School. All BOS members present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey. 4. Election of Chairman. · Elected Sally Thomas for Calendar Year 2002 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. · Elected Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr., for Calendar Year 2002 6. Certificate of Appreciation: James B. Murray, Jr. · PRESENTED by Chairman. 7. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk. · Reappointed Ella Carey as Clerk, and Laurel Bentley as Senior Deputy Clerk for Cc, lcndar Year 2002 · 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of. · ADOPTED Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2002. Set as follows: first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., second and third Wednesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m., with meetings to be held in the County Office Building. CANCELLED the December 18, 2002 Board meetin 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Liz Palmer presented a statement, on behalf of the League of Women Voters, regarding Integrated Resource 11.1 Set public hearing for February 6, 2002, on an ordinance establishing abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. · SET public hearing for February 6, 2002. 11.2 Appropriations: $1,000 (Form ~r2001045); ($507,312) (Form ~2001047); $600 (Form ~2001048). · APPROVED. 11.3 Old Keswick Farm Road Name Change. · APPROVED new road name as requested and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change. 11.4. Final ACE Property Appraisals for Year 2000-01. · APPROVED the final appraisals on properties appraised from the year 2000-01 applicant pool; and APPROVED purchase of the top four properties, including the Henley property. SUPPORTED the transfer of $136,200 from the Board's Contingency to fund the Henley property. 12. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Mr. Bryan stated that: · VDOT has hired a new planner - Matt Gdmes. They are still looking for an Assistant Resident Engineer. None. Clerk: Advertise in The Dailv Proclress and post notice on door of Courthouse. Cler. k; Forward copy to County Attorney. Clerk: Acknowledge commei-~ts for Chairman's signature. Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Tex Weaver: Coordinate/implement road name change. Ches Goodall: Proceed as directed. Melvin BreedenlRoqer Hildebeidel: Prepare, appropriation for transfer for February 6, 2002 consent agenda. Clerk: Forward to Jim Bryan, VDOT. -Page 1- Mr. · Mr. · MS. · Perkins made the following comments: · He asked for an update on the Advance Mills Bddge. Mr. Bryan responded that VDOT had the bridge repaired a couple of months ago. During an inspection, they noticed some cracks and closed it down for about a week. The classification of the bddge has been lowered. The bddge will be painted this summer, and VDOT will add new stringers and new decking. He asked for an update on Buck Mountain Road. Mr. Bryan said he will get back with Mr. Perkins. Dorder made the following comment: He asked if VDOT could extend the reflector lights, in the middle of road, along Route 20 from Monticello High School to Scottsville, When it is raining and dark, it is difficult to see the lines on the road. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Bryan said he will look into the issue. Thomas made the following comments: The Meadow Creek Parkway alignment has been approved by the CTB. · Referring to VDOT's Monthly Report, she asked about the reference to Redfields and the review of traffic controls at the intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended being submitted to the District Traffic Section. Mr. Bryan said the road was resurfaced and restriped this summer. He thinks the stop sign was installed at a different comer, and his office has asked for a review. 13. Public hearing to amend Section 7-204(c) of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance. · APPROVED rewording of the Albernarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance as proposed. 14. Public hearing on proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment. · APPROVED the FY 2002 budget amendment in the amount of $1,299,210.10 and appropriations as detailed in executive summary. 15. Discussion: Windham. SUPPORTED the proposal to invest one-time County resources (from anticipated VRS refund) into maintaining Windham as an assisted living facility in Crozet and DIRECTED staff to proceed with developing a formal agreement with Jefferson ElderCare and/or Stonehaus Development. The agreement to be subject to the satisfactory resolution of all conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors and to be brought back to the Board for final approval in February. Staff to also explore conditions recommended by City Council. 16. Presentation: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001. · ACCEPTED the FY 2000/2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 21. Appoif~h,ents APPOINTED William Edgerton as the Jack Jouett representative on the Planning Commission, with term to expire December 31, 2005. Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to Planning and to the County Attomey for inclusion in next update of County Code..(Attachment 2~ Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Prepare "thank you" letters for donations. County Attorney/County Executive: Proceed with developing formal agreement for Board approval in February. Clerk: Prepare appointment letters, update Boards and Commissions book and notify appropriate 3ersons. -Page 2- · REAPPOINTED Elizabeth Mclvor as the Jack Jouett representative on the Board of Social Services, with term to expire December 31, 2005. · APPOINTED Scott Goodman as the Jack Jouett representative on the Industrial Development Authority, to complete the unexpired term of James Skove, to expire on January 19, 2003. · REAPPOINTED George Lade as the Jack Jouett representative on the Equalization Board, with term to expire December 31, 2002. · Recommended the APPOINMENT of Diane LaSauce to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee as the joint City/County representative, to fill out the unexpired term of Jeff Bialy, to expire on December 31, 2003. · APPOINTED Dennis Rocker to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with term to expire December 31, 2003. · REAPPOINTED Walter Perkins to the Agricultural & Forestal Distdct Advisory Committee. · REAPPOINTED Lindsay Dorder and Walter Perkins to the Building Committee. · APPOINTED Sally Thomas and Dennis Rocker to the Chariottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning & Coordination Council. · APPOINTED Charles Martin to the Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials for The Workforce Investment Act. · REAPPOINTED David Bowerman and Charles Martin the Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee. · APPOINTED David Bowerman to the Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee. · APPOINTED Lindsay Dorrier to the Historic Preservation Committee. · APPOINTED Charles Martin to the Jail Authority. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas and APPOINTED Dennis Rocker to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee. · REAPPOINTED Walter Perkins and Sally Thomas to the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct Commission. · REAPPOINTED Charles Martin to the Compensation Committee. 22. SP-2001-032. Finley, Robert (Devon Mobile Telecommuni- cations) (Si.qns #58, 59 & 60). · APPROVED SP-2001-032 subiect to 14 conditions. 23. SP-2001-036 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (Si(~n #63). 24. SP-2001-044. Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (Si.qns #62 & 64). · DEFERRED SP-2001-036 & SP-2001-044 and asked staff to review the effect this approval would have on the future alignment of a parkway system. 25. ZMA-2001-013. Hall, C. F. Land Trust (Signs ~W'5 & 76). · APPROVED as proffered. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment Plannin,q staff: Bdng back information for approval of requests on the Consent Agenda. Clerk: Set out proffers. (Attachment 3) -Page 3- 26. SP-2001-048. Reqional Public Safety Radio Project (Petem Mtn} ¢Siqns #77&78). · APPROVED SP-2001-048 subject to 10 conditions. 27. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code ~3-226, Sugar Hollow A.qriculturallForestal District, for proposed addition of five P's totaling 132.251 aCS. · ADOPTED an Ordinance for the proposed addition. 28. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle 'County Code §3-222, Moorman's River A.qricultural/Forestal District, for the proposed withdrawal of 43.577 acs. · DENIED request for withdrawal. 29. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Referring to Item 11.8 on the consent agenda, Ms. Thomas said the Hedtage Toudsm Project is asking for input. If any Board members have comments, please pass them on to the Committee. · Referring to Item 11.6 from the consent agenda, Ms. Thomas said she alerted the Boar's Head Inn to this proposed permit, and they have requested a public headng. · Ms. Thomas said the Board has received request to look at legislation, that may come out of a legislative task force on deregulation, that would remove the SCC from having input on community impact of power plants. She requested staff to ask our legislative liaison to look into what legislation has been proposed and then bring back to the Board for discussion. · Ms. Thomas said Mr. Southard, VDOT Assistant Commissioner for Environment, Planning and Regulatory Affairs, will make a presentation at the February 6, 2002 Board meeting on the Draft SEIS for the Route 29 Buypass. At his request, a list of questions will be forwarded to Mr. Southard so that he will be prepared to address specific concerns at the Board meeting. If Board members have questions, please forward them to staff for inclusion in the list. Mr. Rooker also suggested staff develop a list of appropriate questions to be asked. 28. Adjoum. · The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval, (Attachment Clerk: Forward adopted Ordinance to County Attorney for inclusion in next update of County Code. Prepare letter for Chairman's signature. (Attachment Lori Spencer: Contact Legislative Liaison and proceed as directed by Board. /ewc Attachment 1 - Rules of Procedure Attachment 2 - Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordihance Attachment 3 - Conditions of APP.~rcNal for Planning items Attachment 4 - Sugar Hollow A/F District Ordinance -Pag¢~ 4- RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Attachment I Officers Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423) Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both maybe re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. if the Chairman and V"~e Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman. Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. ('Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Meetings 1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) 2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press -Page5- as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjoumed from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Specia/Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417) A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless ali members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk' shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered. D. Order of Business The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "For the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda". Each person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public headng on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted. -Page 6- Quorum A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If dudng a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415) A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjouming such meeting from daY to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. Voting Procedures Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution) Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1)appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2)imposing taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1428) Public Heatings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten min utes to present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal Presentation. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, propedy seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its consideration. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. ^ motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. -Page 7- 6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjoumed meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. 7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these e~ceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration. Amendment of Rules of Procedure These RUles of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given. Suspension of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. (Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5,74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; l~.eiurn to Board Actior~ -Page 8- Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 02-7(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 7-204. Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. The responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs required by this article shall be as follows: A. The county engineer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each public street or private road which serves or is designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures which is not approved as a part of a subdivision or site plan; 2. Each road funded by the county or the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 3. Each existing road serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two (2) addressable structures, but only at such time when the road serves three (3) addressable structures; provided that if a subdivision or site plan is approved which would be served by the road, then the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for such placement, as provided in paragraph (B)(1). B. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each road approved as part of a subdivision plat or site plan; 2. Each existing road in an existing subdivision or development which is bonded for future acceptance into the secondary system of state highways; and 3. Each existing road for which the placement of signs becomes the responsibility of the subdivider or developer, as provided in paragraph (A)(3). C. The subdivider or developer shall maintain signs it is required to place until such time as the roads are taken into the secondary system of state highways, or are taken over for maintenance by the homeowners as required pursuant to a private road maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the signs shall be maintained by the county except where a special installation has been allowed under part III, section 2(d) of the manual develOped and adopted pursuant to section 7-202. (§§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5, 7-8-92; 10-13-93; Code 1988, §§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02- 7(1), 1-9-02) -Page 9- State law reference-Va. Code § 15.2-2019. Return to Board ACfiO~s -Page 10- Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2001-032. Finley, Robert (Devon Mobile Telecommunications) (Si_~ns #58, 59 & 60). Public hearing on a request to allow 85.5' high wireless telecommunicatiOns "wood-like" POle in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 73P 31C, contains 39.5 acs. Loc on E sd of St Rt 708 approx .5 mis N of the intersec of St Rt 708 & St Rt 637. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. 1. As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monoPOle shall not exceed a total height of 85'6", nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 784.49 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. Guy wires shall not be permitted; b. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the POle, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; c. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the POle shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001; d. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); The pole shall be no taller than the height described in the attached plan (on file) entitled ~Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; The diameter of the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and twelve (12) inches at the top; and The pole, antennas and ground equipment shall be painted a fiat, dark brown color; The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP,' dated October 17, 2001; Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three (3), at the sizes shown on the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP,~ dated October 17, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the pole more than twelve (12) inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the monoPOle; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be -Page 11- 10. 11. 12. 13. removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. The applicant shall obtain a tree conservation easement from the adjoining property owner, for that portion of the two hundred (200)-foot buffer that is within their property. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred(200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall fumish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all aPpropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans; The size of the proposed "grOve trees", required by the Amhitectural Review Board, shall be increased to a mixture of 2 1/2" and 3 1/2" caliper; The information included in the submittal materials, shall be clarified as follows: a. Sheet SU-1 shows the proposed pole at a base elevation of between 700' and 701'. Given the 85'6" height of the pole, the top elevation would be between 785'6' and 786'6". Sheet A-5 identifies the top elevation of the pole as 784.49' which places the base elevation of the pole at 698.99'; and b. The grading shown appears to extend approximately fifteen (15) feet beyond the south side of the lease area. When comparing this to the tree survey, sheet SU-2, it appears that either the roots of ~ree six (6) will be severely damaged or the tree totally removed. Please note if the tree is to be removed, or if it will be protected, the manner in which they -Page 12- 14. will protect it. Also, tree nine (9) is located on the adjacent property and cannot be included in our restrictions unless there is an agreement with that property owner; and The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the County Attomey, prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone. Eeturn to Board. Acti.o ~n~ Agenda Item No. 25..Z. MA-200t-013. Hall~ C. F. Land Trust {Siqns #75 & 76) Public hearing on a request to rezone .503 acs froi-~) R-2 to R-10 to allow the division of one P into 3 individual Ps. The property currently contains 3 dwelling units. The property is currently in the name of a Trust & the trustees are requesting to divide the property into three separate properties each with a dwelling. The current R-2 zoning does not allow the subdivision. TM 56A1-1 P 37. Loc on McComb St at intersec of McComb St & Blue Ridge Ave. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, recommended for 3-6 du/ac in the Crozet Community.) White Hall Dist. Date: 12-14-01 ZMA # 2001-013 Tax Map and Parcel Number. 56A1-1-0-37 PROFFER FORM .2777 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. The purpose of the rezoning of Tax Map 56A1 Parcel 01-37 is to allow existing development to be conforming to the Zoning OrdinanCe in effect on January 9, 2002. By-right use of area zoned R,10 shall be limited to the uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 14.2.1 of Section 14.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January, 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto. Special use of the area zoned R-10 shall be limited to uses permitted by special use permit pursuant to section 14.2.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto. ~u toJ~c_t!ons Agenda item No. 26. SP-2001-048. Regional Public Safety Radio Project (Peters (siqns fl77&78). Public hearing on a request to allow 110' tall lattice, self-supporting, emergency com tower w/antennas extending up to apprcx 125', ground equip & a 12'x32' equip shelter, on 2 acs. Znd PA. -Page13- TM50,PID. Loc on Peter's Mountain Rd approx 4.5 mis from intersec w/Turkey Sag Rd (Rt 640). Rivanna Dist. (Defer from December 12, 2002.) Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resoumes shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exemised. Should the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historiC properties, based on findings of the virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell pole review, the Emergency Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the Planning Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means of mitigation; Antennas, dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall be limited to those that are necessary for establishing the public service radio system. This facility shall not be used for the provision of personal wireless communications services; The top of the pole shall never exceed one hundred five (105) feet above the ground level, or one thousand, seven hundred ninety-nine (1,799) feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL); Only the two (2) proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend abOve the top of the pole. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than twenty (20) feet above the top of the pole; The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that redUces its contrast with the sky; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. All ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads, and pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's Mountain Site Plan and Elevation (on file); and d. The mounting structure shall be a monopole of the minimum diameter necessary to perform it's function and no greater than thirty-six (36) inches at the base and eighteen (18) inches at the top; No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided here in: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; b. Each outdoor I uminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire; and c. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect .the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. In the event that any agency requires that the tower must be lighted for any reason, then this special use permit shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for reapplication or modification as required by the Zoning Ordinance; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any e~dsting trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the -Page 14- = = permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A speCial use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans; ^ tree planting plan containing native species, which could include white pine, short leaf southern pine, and others, shall be developed within the two hundred (200) foot buffer. The purpose of these plantings shall be to abate the visibility of the tower by surrounding it with screening vegetation. It is expected that these plantings will accomplish the screening effect as soon as possible by selection of rapid growth species consistent with their also being a native species, and shall also be subject to approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development; and 10. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as '~ required, the permittee shall fumish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in' an amount sufr~::ient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Return to Board Acflon~.. -Page 15- Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 ARTICLE I1. DIVISION 2. Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the ~Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13. 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, ;15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcel 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02) Return to. Board Actioo~ -Page 16- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Members of the Board of St~oervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cl~(k- December 28, 2001 Agenda for Annual (Organizational) Meeting of January 9, 2002 Agenda Item No. 7. The Code of Virginia, in Section 15.2-1538, states that "The governing body of every locality in this Commonwealth shall appoint a qualified person, who shall not be a member of the governing body, to record the official actions of such governing body." Ella W. Carey expresses a desire to be reappointed as Clerk and Laurie Bentley being reappointed as Senior Deputy Clerk. The positions of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk are reappointed each year. Agenda Item No. 8. Section 15.2-1416 of the Code states that "The days, times and places of regular meetings to be held during the ensuing months shall be established at the first meeting which meeting may be referred to as the annual or organizational meeting; however, if the governing body subsequently prescribes any ... day or time other than that initially established, as a meeting day, place or time, the governing body shall pass a resolution as to such future meeting day, place or time. The governing body shall cause a copy of such resolution to be posted on the door of the courthouse or the initial public meeting place and inserted in a newspaper having general circulation in the county or municipality at least seven days prior to the first such meeting at such other day, place or time...." Should the Board wish to continue with the schedule adopted last year for its regular meetings, the Board needs to adopt a motion to set the meeting times, dates and places for Calendar Year 2002 as follows: first Wednesday of the month - 9:00 a.m., second Wednesday of the month - 7:00 p,m., and third Wednesday of the month - 7:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building on McIntire Road. Should the Board wish to cancel its third meeting in December, 2002, as it has done for the last several years, that date is December 18, 2002. Agenda Item No. 9. A copy of the Board's current Rules of Procedure is attached for review. Agenda Item No. 21. A copy of an updated appointment list is included with this agenda iter~ /evqc i lFLeague of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County I LWV I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors League of Women Voters January 9, 2002 Integrated Resource Planning At the Board of Supervisors Workshop on Water Alternatives on September 5, 2001 the Water Resources staff recommended the creation ofa ne~w regional body to develop Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) for the County, City, Rivamia Water and Sewer Authority, mrat the Albemarle County Service Authority..As the staff noted in its memo dated 31 August 2001, "IRP is a comprehensive planning approach that brings water supply, environmental resource protection, water conserVation, and other issues into one discussion". The League and others submitted statements in support of this concept. The Board seemed very receptive but since then has taken no action. We assume that the Board is COmmitted to IRP, Since most of the water resources are in the County, we think it is appropriate for you to takeda leadership role in getting Integrated Resource Planning started. We suggest that you do the following: (1) Enlist the support of the City, RWSA,,and ACSA. (2) Form a committee, which would include officials and knowledgeable community members, (3) Put funding for IRP in your budget. Staff recommended that development oflRP be done concurrently with the selection of water alternatives. Integrated Resource Planning does ,not require permitting. League members and others in the community are available to help with the details. Thff last discussion of this was four months ago, It's now time to move forward and start the new year with this important initiative, RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Agenda Item #: Clerk's Initials; \..a non:partisan organization dedicated'to the.promotion of inforrrtec~ anaC acti~e jaartict, pation of citizens in gcrvernrne~tt." COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance - Abatement of Real Estate Tax SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request adoption of an ordinance establishing abatement of levies on building that have been razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Breeden, Woodzell, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance REVIEWED BY: 5~~~ BACKGROUND: Virginia State Code Section 58.1-3222 enables a locality to provide, by ordinance, for the abatement of levies on buildings which are (i) razed, or (ii) destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. DISCUSSION: County Code Section 15-1001 provides for the assessment of all new buildings substantially completed or fit for use and occupancy prior to November 1 in the year of completion. The assessment is prorated based on the portion of the year the building is substantially completed or fit for occupancy. Currently, however, there is no County ordinance providing for the abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed, or destroyed or damaged after January 1 of each year. To promote taxation equity, the ability to abate levies as provided in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3222, should be enacted effective for the 2002 tax year. The financial impact to the County would be deemed to be minimal. The County Attorney's office has drafted the attached ordinance based on the enabling State legislation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for the attached ordinance on February 6, 2002. 01.235 ORDINANCE NO. 02-15(1) Draft: December 7, 2001 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE X, REAL ESTATE IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle ~s amended and reordained as follows: By Adding: Sec. 15-1003 happenings. Sec. 15-1003 Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous Chapter 15. Taxation Article X. Real Estate - In General Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. Levies may be abated on buildings which are (i) razed, or (ii) destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. No such abatement, however, shall be allowed if the destruction or damage to such building shall decrease the value thereof by less than $500. Also, no such abatement shall be allowed unless the destruction or damage renders the building unfit for use and occupancy for thirty days or more during the calendar year. The tax on such razed, destroyed or damaged building is computed according to the ratio which the portion of the year the building was fit for use, occupancy and enjoyment bears to the entire year. Application for such abatement shall be made by or on behalf of the owner of the buildin~ within six months of the date on which the building was razed, destroyed or damaged. (Ord. 02-15(1), 2-6-01) State law reference - Va. Code § 58.1-3222. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held~6n Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorfier Mr. Rooker Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12-26-01 P12:1(2 RCYD AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation Request SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriations #2001045, 2001047, 2001048 AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White REVIEWED BY: ~/~"'~'~ BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates the County must amend its current budget only if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget of $500,000, whichever is lesser. The following appropriations consist of two expenditure transfers and an expenditure and offsetting revenue reduction, and do not require a budget amendm?nt. DISCUSSION: Appropriation #2001045 At its December 12, 2001 meeting, the Board approved the transfer of $1,000 from its contingency fund to the Industrial Development Authority for the TransDominion Express Steering Committee. Appropriation #2001047 September 30, 2001 enrollment was 231 students fewer than projected for the FY01/02 Budget. Due to the large differential between the actual number of students that are attending school and the number that were projected, a correction should be made to reduce both expenses and revenues associated with these students. Appropriation #2001048 At its meeting on December 5, 2001, the Board approved the transfer of $600.00 from its contingency fund to the Creative Communications Association for the Midnight Ramble Festival. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on Appropriation #2001045, 2001047, and 2001048. 01.239 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO 2001045 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ TRANSFERS I 1000 89000 566225 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY 1,000.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY (1,000.00) REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE. DEC. 17, 2001 AP PROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001047 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REDUCTION IN SCHOOL BUDGET DUE TO DECREASE IN ENROLLMENT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 2100 61101 112100 Salaries-Teach er 210000 FICA 222100 VRS 231000 Health Ins 232000 Dental Ins 241000 VRS-Group Life (393,961.00) (30,138.00) (42,824.00) (35,833.00) (1,404.00) (3,152.00) CODE 2 2000 24000 TOTAL $ (507,312.00) REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 190104 VRS-INST $ (8,062.00) 190106 FICA-INST (14,574.00) 190108 LIFE INS-INST (620.00) 240201 State Sales Tax (83,955.00) 240202 Basic School Aid (314,343.00) 240504 Lottery Funds (16,313.00) 240206 Textbooks (5,180.00) 240272 Salary Supplement (7,527.00) 240208 Gifted/Talented (3,044.00) 240209 Sp. Ed. (40,762.00) 240213 Voc. Ed. (4,990.00) 240220 Remedia Ed (3,975.00) 240247 At Risk Ed (1,852.00) 240248 Maintenance Reserve (1,269.00) 240603 SOL Materials (846.00) TOTAL $ (507,312.00) TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 17, 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X 2001 O48 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATES. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ - TRANSFERS I 1000 79000 566235 CREATIVE COMM. ASSOCIATES 600.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY (600.00) REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 17, 2001 ./- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Old Keswick Farm Name Change SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Road Name Change Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Weaver AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests may be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval upon validation of the following: Landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road in question have signed a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with other road name guidelines (not a duplicate name, etc.) outlined in the Manual. , DISCUSSION: Request to change the name of Old Keswick Farm to Old Keswick at the request of the landowner (see attached letter). A map indicating the location of this road is also attached. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the new road name as requested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change. 01.237 11-19-01 AI0:58 N Peggy Augustus Old Keswick Keswick, Virginia 22947 804-293-6090 Fax: 804-979-8839 November 14, 2001 Mr. Patrick Powetl Planning Department County of Albemarle 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear. Mr. Powetl, Please correct your records to show that my correct address is: 2262 Old Keswick Keswick, Virginia 22947 and hot: 2262 Old Keswick Farm as your records now show It was Old Keswick when my family purchased it in 1952 and to my knowledge i.+. has always been simply known as Old Keswick. Thmzk v-ou for your assistance with this. Sincerely, Margaret G. Augustus \ / V \ \ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Final ACE Property Appraisals for Year 2000-01 SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request approval of appraisals for year 2000-01 ACE applicants and funding of top four (4) properties STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Per the Executive Summary from April 4th, 2001 ("Update on Status of Applications for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program"), the Board of Supervisors formally approved the ACE Committee's recommendation to appraise the top five or six ranked properties from the inaugural pool of applicants. These properties were appraised in the fall, however, the methodology and level of documentation to support the appraisal figures did not initially meet the approval of the Appraisal Review Committee (ARC). After several weeks of deliberation between the independent appraiser and the ARC, the appraisals for the top five ranked properties were recently approved by the ARC. DISCUSSION: Per the County ordinance, the Appraisal Review Committee has the following power and duties: 1 ) "Review appraisals and make recommendations thereon to the Board of Supervisors" and; 2) "Determine the adjusted appraised values and make recommendations thereon to the Board of Supervisors". Following much discussion and a thorough review of the appraisals for FY 2000-01, the Appraisal Review Committee recently approved the appraised values for the top five ranked properties from the initial applicant pool (see Attachments A and B). These include in order of rank: Young, Powell, Lawson, Henley and McCaskill. Since the ACE budget for purchasing easements in the first year (FY 2000-01 which was carried over to FY 2001-02) is limited to $1,000,000, the County can only purchase the top three properties and 51% of the fourth property - Henley. Purchase of the fifth appraised property (McCaskill) is not possible with the first year's funding. Since the County can fund the majority of the Henley easement and this padicular property is the most threatened by development, the ARC and ACE Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors utilize some of the second year's funding (FY 2001-02) to pay any balance above and beyond the first year's budget of $1,000,000. This would require an additional $136, 200. If the appraised values for the second pool of applicants are as projected (see Attachment C), less than $1,000,000 would be spent to purchase the top six easements in the second year, thus lessening the impact of borrowing from the second year's budget to help fund Henley. Utilizing the two years of funding as proposed will also ensure purchase of the highest scoring properties submitted in the first two years of the program. RECOMMENDATION: The following recommendations are provided for action by the Board of Supervisors: 1) Approve the final appraisals on properties appraised from the year 2000-01 applicant pool. 2) Approve purchase of the top four (4) properties, including Henley, which will require $136,200 from the second year's funding in the FY 2001-02 budget. 01.242 Attachment A The ACE Appraisal Review Committee met this morning and moved to approve the 3rd round of appraisals submitted by The Appraisal Group. The summary of easement values and (percentage of land value they represent) are as follows: Young Property: Powell Property: Henley Property: Lawson Property: McCaskill Property: $430,000 (30.8%) $400,000 (21.1%) $300,000 (27.3%) $300,000 (21.5%) $ SS,000 (10.9%) We recommend these go to the Board of Supervisors for the next step in our process. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me if you have any questions regarding the appraisals. Joe Samuels Tel. (434) 295-8540 Attachment B Appraisals - Year 2000 ACE Applicants (with $1,000,000.00 to spend on easements) Applicant County Assessment Young $ 962,400.00 Easement Value (x 25%) $ 240,600.00 TAG Value 2 Easement Value~ (%) $1,397,247.00 $ 430,000.00 (31%) $ 404,200.00 Powell $1,389,700.00 $ 347,425.00 $2,268,297.00 $ 400,000.00 (21%) $ 150,000.00 4 Lawson $1,102,200.00 $ 275,550.00 $1,378,571.00 $ 300,000.00 (22%) Henley $ 901,200.00 $ 225,300.00 $1,128,000.00 $ 300,000.00 (27%) $ 282,000.00 McCaskill $ 641,200.00 $ 160,300.00 $ 783,178.00 $ 86,000.00 (11%) $ 60,200.00 Total $1,196,400.00 1 Easement Value was calculated by using 25% of the County assessment of fair market value. 2 TAG (The Appraisal Group) Value is TAG's assessment of total fair market value 3 Easement Value is the value of the conservation easement according to TAG. In parenthesis is the percentage value of the easement relative to total fair market value. 4 Reflects the net ACE payment after $250,000 of funding from VOF. BOLD represents the net payment the County of Albemarle would pay for an individual easement after making adjustments on the income grid for Adjusted Gross Income. Notes: With the recent approval of the properties plus. $145,800 (51%) of Henley. can find funding for. appraisals by the ARC, we can afford the first three (3) This leaves a $136,200 shortfall on Henley which I hope we Attachment C What can ACE afford for year 20017 Property Count,? Assessment Projected Appraisal~ Easement Value2 Adjusted Value3 Mehring $ 527,400 $ 727,812 $145,562 $ 145,562 Pollock $ 360,929 - 511,000 $ 498,082-705,180 $ 99,616-141,036 $ 99,616 - 141,036 Byrom $ 630,100 $ 869,538 $173,908 $ 121,735 (70%) *McCaskill a year 2000 applicant bumped into this pool $ 84,000 5; 63,840 (76%) Hughes $ 345,000 $ 476,100 $ 95,220 $ 95,220 Clarke $ 690,000 $ 952,200 $ 222,525 $ 190,440 Gildea $ 538,900 $ 743,682 $148,736 $ 148,736 *Hart $ 447,100 $ 616,998 $123,400 S 123,400 *Scharer $ 326,800 $ 450,984 $ 90,197 $ 90,197 Total Projected Easement Value - $1,078,746 - 1,120,166 Notes: "Projected Appraisal" is the estimated property value based on the TAG appraisals for last year which are 38% above the County assessments. "Easement Value" is 27.6% of the County fair market assessment (based on TAG's results). "Adjusted Value" is the actual value ACE would pay after adjustments from the income grid. ** Applicants from Year 2000 pool. Answer to Question: It looks like we could afford the top six (6) properties from the Year 2001 applicant pool plus McCaskill who would be bumped up from the Year 2000 pool. The net projected cost would be $906,569 and protect up to 1,821 acres. The cost could be higher if McCaskill is re-appraised (it should be) resulting in a higher value. This might be partially offset, however, if Pollock sells some of his property (currently on the market). Though we could almost afford Hart, it would leave Scharer in the cold whose point total is only 0.10 less. MONTHLY REPORT JANUARY 2002 Mission [] Essential Tasks Assessment [] Construction & Maintenance [] Planning & Traffic Engineering ' Budget and Issues Mission The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are: focused on public safety fiscally and environmentally responsible supportive of alternative transportation means supportive of neighborhood and regional development ESSENTIAL TASKS TASK MAINTAIN SECONDARY & PRIMARY ROADS ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, guardrail, signs, patrols o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT - Gravel roads machined, stone and liquid calcium added Safety patrols over Christmas/New Year's - PMs completed Leg end: (;~--a: 90-100% Excellent : 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~%~.~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 3 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK ASSESSMENT (see legend below) 2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o PE Activities o Project Construction REMARKS Meadowcreek Parkway location approved Legend: ~ rc~: 90-100% Excellent > : 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~c~A: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 4 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) Task Assessment (See legend below) 3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES Remarks o Issue and review permits o Review site plans and rezoning request o Conduct studies and advise 25 land use permits issued; 3 subd submitted; Planner position to be filled in January 5 developments in planning stages 3 traffic studies under review o Inspect and monitor subdivisions Legend: ~;~:~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~:,~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (see legend below) o Request and advise on signals & signs o Request and advise on studies & data o Assist with design REMARKS See new Traffic Engineering page Legend: Gre~:m 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~>k~,~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 6 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING January 2002 Albemarle County Six Year Plan Project Status Primary Projects PPM L&D Scop~ Field Field Route S Contact ProjectNumber Description ing Survey Review P.H. [qsp. R/W Adv. Comments 20 15996 BAA i00204302-126,PE101 Bridge Replacement-Carters Bridge ~~~~~ 12-02 20 17619 BAA 0020~002-127.PE101 PVCC to Monticello H.S~Entrance ~~ No Ad. Date-Waitingforfund/ng 20 52494 BAA 00204302-128,P El01 Turn lanes at bt. Rte. 726 - Scottsville Scop/ng 10431 53 18897 BAA 0053-002-101,B601 BridgeReplacement-BucklslandCreek 2-02 6432 2433 10-03 12-03 ,250 50569 DWS 0250,002-114,1t5,C501BridgeRepL-Carron&lJmestoneCk~ ~~~~ 2432 1-03 250 56869 RDL 0250-002-116,C501 LeflTumlanes~Route616~ 10-02 No ad date set 29 16160 JAG 30294302-F22,P El01 Rte. 29 Western Bypass ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Waiting fo r Funding;EtS 7 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING January 2002 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects ..... Street Name/ P roje ct Route PPMS lAD Des igner Number Description Scoping Survey Field Review P.H. Field Iaspect. R/W Adv. Comments Airport Road 649 2450 STM ~0~9~i:158 i4.1anes V~Sidei~ ~~ ~~ ~ 124)3 PmffitRoad 691 11129 D'¢S 06914)02-158 2-1anesw/bike ~~~ 84)2 4-02 34)4 8-05 Md~rk Park~ NewAlignment , 631 2530 BAA 0631-002-128,( MeadowCreel 6-04 CTB approved 12/18/01 Free State Rd. Connector Waling for resolution from County B.O.S. -. 52393 JWiq R0004)02-259, Construct 2 la~ ,o ~ ~ ? o ? 8ched. will change pending donated F~'W Gravel Roads IJndsay Rd. Rte. 639 to Louisa Co. Line Contract a~rded 615 54422 ~ i06154)02-P 64 %~ten andP a~ N/A N/A N/A N/A 104)1 GravelRoad U roject Mountain V~s t, Route 6 to 1.2 Mi. E. Rte. 6 ~ 0737.002-P68 Widen, pave &~ ' 737 54425 N/A N/A N/A N/A 124)2 GravelRoad Project Secretarys Road R/Wnot available on 2 parcels 708 11130 07084)02-P 77,N501 34)2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-02 14)3 Gmvet Ro ad P m jeer 8 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING January 2002 Greene County Six Year Plan Project Status Street Name ] Field Field Route PPMS Designer ProjectNumberI Description Scope Survey Review P.H. hsp, R/W Adv. Comments Bacon Hollow Road Schedule to be determined ,,,6~7 ,,, 51022 RDL 0627-039-195,C501 ]Fr. Rte, 615 to Rte 632 ~~ ? Widen and straighten 2-tane roadway Dyke Road 810 2920 DWS 0810-039-146,C501 Fr. 1.7 km E. Rte. 624 to Rte, 624 ~~~~~ 7-02 Widen and straighten 2-lane roadway GRAVEL ROADS Mayo Road 650 57314 0650-039-P 56,N501 Fr. Rte. 810 torte,615 ~~~~~~ 9-02 Widen and Surface Treat - Gravelroad 0,35 Mi. E. Rte 619 ,N OmngeCo. Line 02-02 ~~~~~ /2~02, WidenandSurfaceTreat-Gravetroad '618 0618-002-P Watson Road ,,,640 e515 o6~0(o39113V,NSo1 [Fr. Rte,a33to DeadEnd 06-03 ~~ ~~~ 8-04 W~denandsurface TreatGravelRd. 9 CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CHARLO~ESVl LLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2001 2002 Percent Street Name Project Description Duration Complete ContraCt Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Cost (%) 6029-002-121,C502, B622, B624 Bridge Replacement Seminole Trail Comments: All lanes open t° traffiC` Installation of preemtive system on traffic 99 105 ...... s, ignals and general cleanup remain to complete project. 0615-002-P64, N501 I Gravel Road improvement Lindsay Rd Comments: Contractor will begin work in early spring of 2002. ~ ~ 0 0 0022-002-1010, SR02 I Bridge Replacement Louisa Rd , Comments: Traffic reduced tO single lane at bridge with signals. Contractor will ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 21 continue work on Phase I substructure through JanuarY 2002 weather dependent. 0637-002-6038, 'S RO 1 I Bridge Replacement Dick Woods Rd Comments: Traffic switched onto new bddge Phase I. Contractor will work on ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 50 Phase II substructure through January 2002 weather dependent. GR-7B-01 I Guardrail Replacement Rtes 20 and 29 Comments: Contractor will c0ntinue guardrail installation during January 2002 10 21 weather dependent. Some utility relocation may be necessary on Rte. 29 SBL. Various BP-7A-01 I Bridge Repainting Secondaries Comments: Contractor to begin work in February. ~ ~~~ 0 0 10 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardraii Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE YANCEY MILLS HQ DECEMBER Brush cutting 689 Plant mix 736; potholes on sec. Pulled shoulders 250; machined and added stone 684,637,758,689, 688,636,736,633,634,682,797 Repaired ditches 736; removed leaves from pipe on secondary As scheduled JANUARY Cut limbs 691,636,637,758; cut brush 250 mountain; long arm 250 mountain Machine roads as needed; slope banks 693, 250 shoulder Remove leaves 636~692 Per schedule 11 Mowing Patching Grade/machine/ add stone Ditch~ipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other MAINTENANCE FREE UNION HQ DECEMBER Removed trees, brush 665 Repaired cul-de-sac Rt 1321; repaired shoulder Rt 614; filled sink holes Rt 29; spot patching Rt 614, 664 Machined 643, 606, applied liquid calcium to all gravel roads; added stone to 671,668,674,643 Repaired/replaced drain pipe Rt 668,674; cleaned drains 660,661,29; cleaned ditch at Westminster; add pipe 660; cleaned pipe 614 As scheduled Animal pick up JANUARY Brush cutting 29/660; guardrail mowing 250 Spot patching Machine as needed Per schedule Trash pickup 250 bypass; contract street sweeping 12 o O Mowing MAINTENANCE BOYD TAVERN HQ DECEMBER Contract tree removal 631,250,20 Patching Interstate ramps patched Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Machined secondary routes; liquid calcium applied; stone added Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Per schedule Animal/litter pick up JANUARY Tree removal 250 Add stone as needed on gravel roads Replace pipe Rt 250 by contract Shoulder, ditch, pipe Rt 20; Shoulder repair 250, 231 As scheduled Bridge work if crane avail. 13 Mowing MAINTENANCE KEENE HQ DECEMBER Cut right of way 633 JANUARY Cut right of way 626 improve sight distance at intersection of 726/20 Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch~ipe Pothole repair 795, 706, 630, 602; shoulder repair 631,742,795,715 Machined gravel roads Added stone 717,708,723,722 Ditched 805; reshaped ditches 760 Shoulders Rt 620 Machine gravel roads; add stone as needed Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other Per schedule Animal patrol 6, 29, 20 As scheduled 14 MAINTENANCE STANARDSVILLE HQ Mowing Patching Grade/machine/add stone Ditch/Pipe Guardrail Equip Maint Emergency Ops Other DECEMBER Long arm mowing 33 lower end; Leeboy paver on Rts 1145,1146,1001, 1114,1112,1116 Machine 634, 637,621,667,628 632,637,628,627,638,629 & replaced stone; replaced stone around driveway & mailboxes; applied liquid calc on sec Completed all due PMs Stocked stone/salt; mixed abrasives JANUARY Long arm mowing on sec.; tree/brush removal sec. Pothole patching Machine non hard surface roads Replace pipe 609,610; drainage care on secondaries Daily PM per schedule Animal/litter control 15 EQUIP IVil~a~IT ITEM YANCEY MI LL8 Equipment POSSIBLE # OF # DAYS IN THE DAYS SHOP OP EEATI ONAL # DAYS Trucks 8 248 7 241 Loaders I 31 0 31 Grader I 31 0 31 Tractor mowers 4 124 0 124 F~I lers I 31 0 31 F i~==~= UNION Trucks 7 217 10 207 Loaders I 31 0 Backhoe I 31 0 31 Tractor mowers 3 93 0 93 Rollers 2 62 0 62 ~:~Y~ TAV Elan Trucks 7 217 8 209 LOader I 31 0 31 Backhoes I 31 0 31 Tractor mowers 4 124 2 122 Rollers I 31 0 31 K~-~NE ~-rucks 7 217 0 Lc~ders 2 62 0 Backhoes I 31 0 Tractor m~rs 4 124 0 Roi I,~,rs 2 62 0 ~rsader~ "1 31 5 ST~IE;:3~VI LLE 217 62 31 124 62 26 Trucks 7 Loaders 1 (~raders 2 Tractor movers 4 ROI Is 1 Bac khc~s 2 Chi I~i~m 1 Legend: ~ .~.. 90 - 100% Excellent 217 I I 2C)61 31 0 31 ~2 5 57 124 5 119 31 0 31 62 0 62 31 0 31 1~4~I~TI N(~ (COLOR) 97_ 18°/~ Green CO. 00% Green O0.00% Green O0.00% 00. O0of~ Green 95.390/0 Green 100. O0OJo 1 O0.00% Green 100.00o/~ Green 1CXD. 00o~ 96_ 31% Green 100.00o/~ Green 100.00% Green 98.39o/~ Green 100.00o~ Green 930/0 Green 00% 94°/~ Green 97% 00o4 Grccn ~o/o PLANNING Project Albemarle Towne center (s~r~) Tramc Tramc si~ Study Study Plan Scoping Review Review Current Status ~ Preiimina~ renew of tm~c stu~ and ~ss~y trip analysis c0mpletel ~ Awaiting site plan to respond to study recommendations. ~ ~ning Map Amendment, s~ciai use permitsland Tra~c Study h~ been forwarded to the Distdct for review. ~ Prelimina~ re~ Oftra~c Study c0mpietel Awaiting site plan to respond to study recommendations. County to revise comprehensive ~ plan. sterling uni~rsity HOUSing pr~iminaw review 0ftmffic Study c0mpietel Awaiting site plan to ~ respond to study recommendations. North Pointe Hollymead Preliminary Traffic Study Scope to review. 17 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ISSUES Number 738 631 875 631 649 Vars. Vars. lxsue Description Traffic patterns, speeding, cut through traffic, signage, etc. on Morgantown Road. Signal Warrant at Int. with Dunlora Rd. Review Traffic Controls at Int. with Sunset Ave. Ext. Restripe pavement from city limits to RR Bridge. Traffic Controls at Int. Route 606 Park and Ride Signs Traffic Calming in Hollymead Issue Commertts Recommendation forwarded to the County. Awaiting approval of speed limit reduction from CTB. Submitted to District Traffic Section for review. Submitted to District Traffic Section for review. Submitted to District Traffic Section for review. Traffic Section installed 4-way-stop and reviewing for signal warrants. Submitted to District Traffic Section for review. Submitted to District Traffic Section for review. 18 BUDGET % of Time Budget J Budget J Section Remaining Remaining ~ Comments Adminstration & Support6 Months 59.10% Vacant Positions !Construction Managemenl 6 Months 70.45% Vacant Positions Buildings & Grounds 6 Months 57.06% On Track On Track - Includes AHQ expenditures Maintenance 6 Months 45,64% alt Schedules work. Boyds Tavern AHQ 6 Months 59.25% On ~ ,Free Union AHQ 6 Months 56.06% ,,,,Keene AHQ 6 Months 54.51% On Track ,,,Yancey Mills AHQ 6 Months 55.90% On Track Stanardsville AHQ 6 Months 54.02% Track Residency Wide Overall 6 Months 53.19% ~ Data based on the December 19, 2001 FMS Il Reports 19 None ISSUES 20 James S. Gilmore, III Governor Ronald P. Harem Secretary of Natural Resouxces COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRt INIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office Street Address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801~9519 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 http://www, deq. state.va.us December 10, 2001 Dennis H. Treacy Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman Albemarle Co. Board of Sup. County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0051365 Dear Ms. Thomas: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, this is to provide you with a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. Public notice of this proposed permit action is also being published in a local newspaper, which will establish a 30-day public comment period for this proposed action. If you wish to comment or if you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please contact me at the above address or phone number within the next 30 days. Sincerely, Brandon D. Kiracofe Environmental-Engineer Enclosure cc: Permit Processing File 12-12-01 Al1:42 tN AN Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat PUBLIC NOTICE REISSUANCE OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by newspaper) The State Water Control Board has under consideration the reissuance of the following Permit and State Certificate: Permit No.: VA0051365 Permittee Name and Address: Charlottesville Oil Company, Inc., P.O. Box 6340, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 Facility Name and Location: Charlottesville Oil - Main Plant, U.S. Route 250 West Discharge Description: Existing Industrial discharge resulting from the collection of minor spills and storm water from the loading rack of the petroleum bulk station; Discharge Flow: 0.005 MGD; 10utfall. Receiving Stream: Morey Creek; Stream Mile: 2.82; Basin: James (Middle); Subbasin: N/A; Section: 10; Class: III; Special Standards: None. On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to reissue the permit subject to certain conditions. This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of limiting the following parameter: TPH 30 mg/L average. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board. All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting Brandon D. Kiracofe at the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Valley RegiOnal Office, 4411' Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801; Telephone No. (540) 574-7892; e-mail bdldracofe~deq.state.va.us. Persons may comment in writing or by e-mail to DEQ on the proposed permit action and may request a public hearing within 30 days from the date of the first notice. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. Address comments to the contact person listed above. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer, the facility name and VPDES permit number, and a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for the comments. Requests for a public hearing shall state the reason why a heating is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. DEQ may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. Following the comment period, the Board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit action. This determination will become effective unless DEQ grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 November30,2001 Brian S. Ray Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc. 1717-1B Allied Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 LETTER OF CORRECTION RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 (Property of Floyd E. Johnson Estate) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Ray: This letter replaces the letter of November 20, 2001. The purpose of this correction is to clarify that the 2.21 acres shown on a plat by Thomas Blue, dated December 22, 1966, and located on the east side of State Route 20 is determined to be a separate parcel. The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 contains four (5) separate parcels. Tract #1, containing 2.4 acres has one (1) development right. Tract #2, containing 88.6 acres has five (5) development rights. Tract #3, containing 2.56 acres has one (1) development right. Tract #4, containing 10 acres has five (5) development rights. Tract #5, containing 2.21 acres has one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is provided below. Our records indicate Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 contains 103.962 acres and one dwelling. The most recent deed reference for this property is found in Will Book 94, page 714. The parcel is located in the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District. Files in the Real Estate Department indicate that these four parcels, then identified as 70, 71, 71A and 73, were combined for the convenience of County in the mid 1970s. The most recent deeds for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) are as follows. Deed Book 253, page 467, dated April 10, 1942, conveyed two (2) contiguous tracts from Edgar L. Bradley & Margaret Post Bradley to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H. Johnson. These tracts are described as follows: h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson Corrected.doc 12-05-0t PO2:Og ~N Floyd E. Johnson Estate November 30, 2001 Page 2 (#1) A tract of 2.4 acres conveyed to Margaret Post Bradley from Jettie F. Quick by deed dated September 29, 1929 and recorded in Deed Book 206, page 267. (#2) An adjoining tract of 88.6 acres conveyed to Margaret Post Bradley from Fairview Farms, Inc. and A.H. McKay by deed dated September 18, 1929 and recorded in Deed Book 207, page 67. Deed Book 207, page 68 contains a plat dated November 1929 by Hugh F. Simms showing 88.6 acres (#1) sold by Fairview Farms, Inc. to Margaret Post Bradley. The plat also shows 2.4 acres (#2) located between the road and Totier Creek contiguous to the 88.6 acres and identified by reference to Deed Book 206, page 267. (#3) Deed Book 337, page 265, dated December 3, 1957, conveyed 2 acres more or less from Jack N. Kegley, Special Commissioner to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H. Johnson. The deed notes the property is located on the southwest side of Route 20. (#5) Deed Book 426, page 410, dated February 3, 1967 conveyed 2.21 acres from Francis F. Hunter to Floyd E. Johnson. It is further described as being shown on a plat by Thomas Blue dated December 22, 1966 and is located on the north east side of State Route 20. This is determined to be a separate parcel. Deed Book 426, page 412 contains a plat by Thomas Blue dated December 22, 1966 of a 4.77 acre tract identified as a portion of the Old "Glendower Mill Tract." The tract is divided by Route 20. The portion located on the southwest side of Route 20 contains 2.56 acres. That tract is identified by reference to Deed Book 337, page 265. That tract is identified by reference to Deed Book 337, page 265. (¢t4) Deed Book 466, page 72, dated October 2, 1968 conveyed 10 acres, more or less from John Rush Webb & Charlotte Louise Webb to Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H. Johnson. The property is designated as Lot No. 1 on a plat by M.W. VanDoren, dated 1914 and recorded in Deed Book 158, page 69. A copy of that plat is included in this file. Deed Book 1091, page 2, dated February 8, 1990 conveyed several tracts from Floyd E. Johnson & Anne H. Johnson to themselves as tenants in common. These tracts included the following: Two certain tracts, being a tract of 2.4 acres and an adjoining tract of 88.6 acres shown on a plat by Hugh F. Simms recorded in Deed Book 207, page 68. These are identified as #1 and #2 above. I:\DEP'l'~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson Corrected.doc Floyd E. Johnson Estate November 30, 2001 Page 3 A certain tract containing 2 acres, more or less conveyed on December 3, 1957 and recorded in Deed Book 337, page 265. This is identified as #3 above. All that tract containing 10 acres designated as Lot I on a plat dated 1914 and recorded in Deed Book 158, page 69. This is identified as fi4 above. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this history, Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 is determined to be comprised of four (4) separate parcels, as described above. Each is entitled to its associated development rights based on the acreage of each parcel. Mr. Johnson died on October 9, 1999. On November 2, 1999 his will was admitted to probate and Bank of America was appointed Executor for the estate. Mr. Johnson's will is recorded in Will Book 94, page 714. These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson Corrected.doc Floyd E. Johnson Estate November 30, 2001 Page 4 Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department ~lla Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files Floyd E. Johnson Estate C/O Jim Schroering, Assistant Vice President Bank of America P.O. Box 25718 Richmond, VA 23261-5718 I:\DEP~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\121-70 Johnson Corrected.doc Thomas Jefferson Venture PO Box 1505, Charl0ttes~Cille VA 22902 Phone (434) 979-7310 Fax (434).979-1597 VA Relay Users: 711 TO: FROM: RE: Local Government Administrators Chris Gensic, Thomas Jefferson Venture Heritage Tourism Report Comments December 14, 2001 Attached please find copies of the initial Heritage Tourism study from the Thomas Jefferson Venture to share with your Board of Supervisors. As you may recall, creating a regional Heritage Tourism program was one of the objectives of the TJ Venture Strategic Plan. We are seeking your acceptance of the report and encouragement to grow the Heritage Tourism Program. This will be one of the most visible of the TJ Venture projects. The first step in the project was to work with members of the community to define "Heritage" and then to identify those sites or areas within the region that would portray that heritage to visitors. This work was carded out by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation who worked with PDC staff to identify Heritage Teams for each locality and then facilitated the group's meetings and public forums. The result of their efforts is published in this document. The project is considered to be an on-going process. You may note heritage areas with which you are familiar which were not brought to the attention of the teams. These may be added. The first product of this program is to be the first regional tourism map. It will be a Heritage Tourism map based on the information in the report. Three sample maps are included in the report. The Heritage Tourism maps will be on an interactive web site overseen by the Tourism and Convention Bureau. The same group will contract with a graphics firm to develop a visually attractive Heritage Tourism map based on the "Scenic Drives and Villages" map in the report which encompasses all localities in the region. It is expected there will be audio tapes produced to accompany the maps to inform visitors of the background of the area and sites. The second product of the program will be a Handbook for Heritage Tourism Site Protection and Preservation. This document will set forth the mechanisms which might be used to name heritage sites and the tools with which a locality could preserve and protect the sites. The choice to name and protect the sites is the purview of the local government and its citizens. As we became more immersed in this first effort it became clear the "heritage" basis for regional tourism made a great deal of sense and opened up all sorts of possibilities for future projects. The first will be the map production both hard copy and web-based. It is important to start this program and to continue interest by adding additional sites and ideas to the heritage concept. Venture is seeking local government review and comment about the sites and routes recommended in the report. We will take these comments into account before moving forward with designing and printing a final map. Please return comments by January 31, 2002. The report is available at www.tjpdc.org/venture/heritage tourism report.pdf. If you need additional copies or have questions, please contact Chris Gensic, (434) 979-7310 or cgensic@tjpdc.org. Q:\VENTURE~Ieritage Tourism~heritage_report_tolocals_memo.doe Thomas Jefferson Venture HERITAGE TOURISM PROJECT Summary Report July 2001 Prepared For the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission By The Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia Summary Report Introduction As heritage tourism is gaining popularity throughout the nation, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPDC) has launched a new effort to entice tourists to spend more time and dollars in the region exploring the 'rich heritage of Charlottesville and the five surrounding counties of Albemarle, Ftuvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson. The regional Heritage Tourism project is part of the TJPDC's broader "Thomas Jefferson Venture" (TJ Venture) project, which aims to enhance the region's competitiveness. The first step of the TJ Venture Heritage Tourism project was to identify the potential sites and events for regional Heritage Tourism. This report summarizes how this goal was accomplished by the Institute forEnvironment~il Negotiation (IEN) at the University of Virginia, which was contraCted to use public involvement in the development of the heritage tourism sites and events. The next anticipated step to be undertaken by the TJPDC will be the conceptual and graphic design of a Heritage Tourism map that utilizes the sites presented here. Public Involvement Design The IEN designed a process to involve key' stakeholders as well as the general public fi.om each of'the region's five counties in the identification and selection of heritage tourism sites and events. At the outset, IEN identified people in each of the five counties who were familiar with their county's historical, natural or cultural heritage and who could also represent various interests, such as economic development, tourism, historical, preservation, and environmental concerns. Through networking and phone calls, the IEN assembled five Heritage Tourism Teams of about five to ten people each. (SeeAl~pendixAfor a list of the Teams.) IEN met with each of these teams separately beginning in March 2001 to discuss what "Heritage Tourism" means for their county. More specifically, the Heritage Tourism Teams identified the kinds of sites or events that might be eligible for heritage, tourism, and then identified specific criteria to use in narrowing the list of sites. These categories and criteria were then combined and presented to a joint meeting in early March of all five Teams. After refining both the categories and criteria, those present tested the criteria on several different kinds of sites to determine whether the criteria would work in practice. The result was that Participants agreed that the final criteria were comprehensive and effective in obtaining the desired results. (See Appendix B for the list of categories, and Appendix C for the final decision criteria.) Using these common categories and criteria, the IEN met with each of the Teams to develop lists of proposed heritage sites and events. Following the refinement of these lists, the IEN advertised and facilitated five public meetings in May in each of the counties. The goals of the public meeting were to educate people about theHeritage Tourism project and to obtain their feedback about the proposed sites and events. The comments received from the public were then considered by the Teams in the final refinement of their lists. As the final step of the project the IEN brought all five Heritage Teams together again in early June. The Teams were able to see what sites were developed by neighboring counties and to identify possible heritage tourism themes that could traverse the entire region. These themes are summarized below. Throughout this entire process the Teams stressed that some of the most important criteria for a site to be listed was that private property should not be included without the owner's permission, and also that inclusion of the site would not bring about harm'or damage to the historical integrity of the site. Because of these two criteria, numerous.sites were considered but ultimately excluded from the listing. For example, individual historical private homes were often dropped if the home was a destination as opposed to a part of clustered driving tour, and if permission for viewing from the road was not obtained. Another example is that some churches in remote rural areas were dropped, because visitors would ~not be supervised and vandalism might be an unintended consequence. These decisions were made by each of the county Teams. With regard to issues of consistency, the final decision-maker for whether a site should be listed was the county Heritage Team where that site was located. So while one county Team might have focussed more on its rural villages or churches, another might have focussed more on its outdoor opportunities. Despite the potential for inconsistencies, the IEN staff and Team members agreed on this approach based on the assumption that the people who actually live in.a county are the best judges of what 'would or would not work for heritage tourism in that county. Also, it was felt that the county representatives should be in the "driver's seat"with regard to their local heritage tourism. 4 Heritage Tourism Defined Heritage tourism covers a broad range of historic, cultural and natural sites and events, ranging from historical buildings and sites, scenic vistas and landscapes, to cultural festivals and fairs. At the first gathering of all five county Heritage Teams, participants crafted the following definition of heritage tourism to guide their efforts. The definition is derived from the'Albemarle County Historic Plan, the Virginia's State Department of Historic Resources, and input from the five county Heritage Teams. Heritage Tourism* is travel directed towards activities concerning locally, regionally and/or nationally significant historic, cultural and natural resources, landscapes and events or recreation that provides educational, aeSthetic and economic benefits. Heritage Tourism resources are those which are significant to the heritage odCa particular locality and which may include its significant and unique culture, character, development, lifestyles, architecture, natural features and landscapes, indigenous and emerging communities and its historic events, places, people and folklore. *Ideally, Heritage Tourism provides interactive opportunities to learn about and explore the unique character of a locality or region beyond the traditional tourism experience. Identification of sites, events and people as significant for Heritage Tourism places may lead to greater protection and stewardship of those resources. Heritage tourism is a rapidly growing niche market throughout the U.S.. AcdOrding to a study by D.K. Shiffiet & Associates in McLean, Virginia, heritage tourism has grown in the late 90's at almost twice the rate of other forms of leisure travel..Heritage travelers reportedly account for. 25% of all tourism dollars spent by U.S. leisure travelers, even though they number only about 12% of the leisure person:trips. They tend to stay longer than domestic leisure travelers, by a little over one day longer, and on average spend 40% more money per person per day than the typical leisure traveler. While preservation is not currently a part of the TJPDC project, identification of sites and events as significant for Heritage Tourism can often lead to greater protection and stewardship of those resources. It is hoped that a website and an audio tour can be developed during a later phase of the project. Ideas and Recommendations Emerging From the Five Heritage Tourism Teams Throughout this project, participants in the Heritage Teams were supportive and enthusiastic about the potential for Heritage Tourism. A number of ideas surfaced for the further develOpment and implementation of this program, which we have summarized here. A. Linkages: The TJ Venture Heritage Tourism should be connected via the web, brochures, and 'other mechanisms w/th related projects, Examples of related projects are: · Civil War Trails Program. · Lewis and Clark Museum Project. · African-American Heritage Association of Virginia's program. · Journey Through Hallowed Ground · Virginia Association of Museums. · State Office of Economic Development. A sampling ofwebsites that couM be linked are listed below: · http://www.cr, nps.gov/NR/travel/joumey/intro.htm http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/travel/joumey/sou.htm · http://www.lewisandclarkeast.org/index.html. · www.twnf, org Wintergreen Nature Foundation · www.oakridgeestate.com Oak Ridge · www.waltonmuseum.org Walton's Mountain Museum · http ://www. NelsonCounty. com · http://fiuvannaheritage.org/. · http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/onlineitin-trav.htm#alpha · www.yeslouisa.org · www.louisacounty, com · wv~v.yesvirginia, org Bo Numbering: The regional map should number sites and' events to clump those that are geographically near each other. This would be the most useful method of numbering for tourists. C. Map features: The map should ensure that physical features listed (e.g. Ruritan Lake) are rendered visible and are in the. same color as similar physical features (e.g. streams and rivers). The region's rivers should also be clearly marked on the map. D. Color-coding: The map should color-code site and event numbers by categories such as architecture, food, trails, rivers and lakes, and timeframe (e.g., quick day trips, several day route, etc.). E. Ancillary Sites: Amcillary sites are those that do not have intrinsic heritage tourism value but which provide important support to the tourism industry, such as food, restrooms, lodging, and non-heritage recreation. While we have provided individual names for some ancillary sites, the general consensus was that most of these sites should not be listed by name but should simply be marked on the map with icons indicating food, lodging, golf, ATMs, etc. Exception might be made for Bed &.Breakfasts, which require advance reservations and might' therefore be listed individually. Some of these decisions will need to be made later on in the project, as the map is conceptualized and designed. F. Commercial establishments: Members of the Heritage Teams strongly recommended that there be a clear articulation on the map itself of why some commercial establishments are included and others are not. It should be made clear that the county is not endorsing some commercial ventures over others. This will be particularly important with regard to Bed and Breakfasts, some of which may wish to be listed but may not meet the criteria for heritage tourism. These should be listed as "ancillary" sites. G. General Information: The heritage tourism map should also offer general descriptions of each county and its heritage. H. References: The map and website should provide references for additional readings, background documents, sites and museums for further research, and links to related websites to enrich the experience. It is felt that this kind of information will be particularly useful to Heritage tourists. I. Distribution: Considerable thought should be given to the eventual distribution of the Heritage Tourism map, and ensuring that there a mechanisms other than the intemet for reaching people. Ideas included stores, tourism bureaus, the Interstate rest stops,. Blue Ridge Parkway information gazebos, and northem Virginia and Washington D.C. 7 J. Presentations to County Decision-Makers: Participants in the public meetings urged that a final presentation of the maps and related information be made to the local Planning Commissions and Board 0f Supervisors for their input, prior to final revisions on the map. K. Passport programs: Consider developing a general "passport" program where people are able to visit a series of sites and receive points or stars, and then receive a prize for completing the route. L. Rating system: As the program matures, one idea was to develop a universal rating system for the various kinds of establishments, like those used in the Michelin or AAA guides. M. Film IndUstry: Another idea is to link With the Virginia Film Office by sending them sample photos of heritage sites and homes and copies of the heritage tourism map, to entice the film industry to do more work in this region. N. Special Regional Cultural Heritage prOgrams: The African American Heritage Association of Virginia has launched this summer a pilot series of cultural receptions at different heritage locations in Richmond, with each reception featuring a different mix of music, theatre skits about a specific historical issue, and food. These receptions aim to raise awareness of African American heritage in Virginia. Using this pilot as a model, our region may wish to develop a heritage reception series that'moves to different locations in the region and which covers a wide.variety of heritage issues, including African American and other themes. O. Continued regionalism: Members of the Heritage Teams and those attending the public meetings were generally enthusiastic about the project, overall. Team members recommended that further effortS on the project be coordinated with the Charlottesville Regional Tourism Bureau. Many were willing to continue to participate in this project as it develops. Many also recommended that the project continue to be developed on a regional basis, with continuing input and review from the county Teams. Themes for Regional Heritage Tourism Development A number of possible themes for region-wide development emerged from the Te~h'n discussions and are summarized here. Six themes have sufficient information for development now, while two other themes would need additional development work. One way that these themes might be rendered visible on a map would be through the use of inset boxes, which would highlight just those features related to the theme. Another way that these themes might be rendered visible would be through the use of specific colors for identifying special thematic driving routes and related 'sites and events. · Presidents' Country: This theme links all of the historic courthouses, historic village walking tours, and sites related to Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, via scenic rural drives that connect the five counties. Members Of the Heritage Teams were not able to finalize a title for this theme, but suggested other ideas such as: "People, Places & Government," or "Jefferson Country." (See Appendix D for sample thematic map.) · Architectural Interest: A number of specific drives have been established that provide views of areas with.architectural interest, based on the work of Dr. K. Edward Lay, Cary D. Langhorne Professor Emeritus of Architecture, Historic Preservation Consultant. (See Appendix E for sample thematic map and sample descriptions for accompanying information.) · Agrarian Theme: This theme would include all of the orchards, wineries, and farms open for tours, and special agrarian-related events such as Old Farm Day. · Outdoor Recreation: This theme would include the Blue Ridge Parkway, Appalachian Trail, waterfalls, hiking trails, waysides and picnic areas, horse country drives and events, wilderness areas, and all the river put-ins. It could also include a box listing all of the stocked streams in the region, or providing a reference where tourists could find that information. (See Appendix F for sample thematic map.) · Rural Villages and Vistas: This theme would include the smaller village tours and scenic drives within counties that may or may not connect with other counties. Examples of these are the scenic drives within Greene County, and the Stagecoach and scenic village drives in Fluvanna County.' (See Appendix G for sample thematic map.) · Churches: This theme would include the historic churches' and cemeteries identified in the region, which often are a "draw" in and of themselves. · African-American Heritage: This theme would include the sites and routes important to African-American history. While this theme probably has the least readily available information it warrants additional research and site development, as it is felt to offer great promise for heritage tourism. · CC Camps:-New Deal construction: This theme would need work to be further developed. The idea would be to identify all of the CCC camps and New Deal constructions within the region. 9 APPENDIX A List Of Heritage Tourism Teams Charlottesville/Albemarle Team Stephen Bredin Historical Society 112 Tally Ho Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-296-3904 Lee Catlin Albemarle County Community Relations 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-296-5841 lcatlin@albemarle.org Ali Cheesman Economic Development Specialist City of Charlottesville, Economic Development 610 East Market St. P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 804/970-3604 cheesmana@ci.charlottesville.va.us Teresa Dowell-Vest Program Director-African American Heritage Program Virginia Foundation for the Humanities 145 Ednam Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-924-3296 'td2k@virginia.edu James Murray Howard, PhD, FAIA Curator and Architect for the Academical Village, Kenan-Lewis Fellow in Historic Architecture University of Virginia 575 Alderman Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 804-982-5829 804-982-5049 (Fax) _jmh4x~virginia.edu Kat Imhoff Chief Operating Officer Thomas Jefferson Foundation Monticello P.O. Box 316 Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-98-9802 kimhoff~rnonticello.org K. Edward Lay Cary D. Langhome Professor Emeritus of Architecture, Historic Preservation Consultant 104 Wilson Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-973-6151 kedwardla¥@virginia.edu J. James Murray Professor of Biology Emeritus University of Virginia Citizens for Albemarle 1601 Bentivar Farm Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22911 804-973-6693 jjm5a~virginia.edu 10 Meredith Richards Charlottesville City Council P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-984-1578(W) 804-295-6234 (H) 804-245-1575 (Fax) mmrich~cstone.net Kent Ruffin (member of all five teams) African American Heritage Association of Virginia (AAHA! VA) P.O. Box 12171 RiChmond, VA 23241-0171 804-343-3300 words.pl us. graphics@att, net Pete Runge District Director Virginia Canals and Navigations Society 119 Harvest Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22903 804-977-3733 prunge~rlc.net Mark M. Shore Director Charlottesville/Albemarle COnvention& Visitors Bureau P.O. Box 178 Charlottesville, VA 22902 804.293.6789 shore(~.ci.charlottesville.va.us Aubrey Watts City of Charlottesville Economic Development 804-970z3110 (w) 804-245-9313 (H) 804-970-3299 (Fax) watts@ci.chaflottesville.va.us Jeff Wemer Charlottesville-Albemarle Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 804-977-0830 jwerner@pecva.org Fluvanna County Team Clara Colby UVa School of Law Fluvanna County Historical Society, Preservation Piedmont board member (2001 secretary), Orange County African-American Historical Society board member Rt. 1, Box 57M, Fork Union, VA 23055 804-842-3006 clara@virginia.edu Ellen Miyagawa Fluvarma County Historical Society Rt. 2, Box 1035, Palmyra, VA 22963 804-842-3378 emiyagawa~cstone.net Marvin Moss President, Historical Society: President, Fluvanna Heritage Trails Foundation; Coordinator Fluvanna Heritage Forum; Member of Rivanna Conservation Society 7 Box 4340, Palmyra, VA 22963 804-589-4839 804-589-4769 (Fax) mmoss@cstone.net Julie King Founder Fluvanna Heritage Trail Member Economic Development Commission PO Box 235 Bremo Bluff, VA 23022 804-842-5052 11 Alan Sullivan Fluvanna County Historic Society Member of Rivanna Conservation Society 804-589-5032 (H) maggi34(~_~juno.com Greene County Team Philip Anns Thomas Jefferson Planning District Economic Development Commission Industrial Development Authority 6653 Celt Road Stanardsville, VA 22973 (804) 985-8741 aea4n~unix.mail.virginia, edu David. Bearinger (804) 985-7000 Jerry Bortner Mayor of Stanardsville (804) 985-8494 Don Covey Past Pres. Historical Society 122Mountain Crest Stanardsville, VA 22973 dnvcovey~firstva, com (804) 985-3453 Julie Dickey Local historian P.O. Box 768 Stanardsville, VA 22973 (804) 985-4904 bkfmoss~aol.c0m Cliff Kirakofe Heritage Tourism advocate 5880 Burnett Lane Ruckersville, VA 22968 (804) 973-2467 cliffkir@mindspring, com Ray Pickens Architecture Survey Group P.O. Box 333 Stanardsville, VA 22973 .skytoysdmv~earthlink.net (804) ~985-6872 Louisa County Team Jean Bazzanella Christopher Wren Campground 7149 Zachary Taylor Hwy. Mineral, VA 23117 bassladygno~aol.com Jim Candeto Town Manager, Mineral PO Box 316 Mineral, VA 23117 540-894-5100 Pattie Cooke Historical Society 200 Church Ave. Louisa, VA 23093 540-967-2794 ccooke@firstva.com 12 Linda Edwards Economic Development Director PO Box 160 Louisa, VA 23093 '540-967-4581. edwardsL99@hotmail.com Carolyn McCray Research Assistant Economic Development PO Box 160 Louisa, VA 23093 540-967-4580 cmccray(~_,louisa.org George E. Morrison III Town Manager, Louisa PO Box 531 Louisa, VA 23093 540-9674400 info(~_ ~louisatown.org Hortense Gordon-Lewis 540-872-3653 Olivia. Ryan Historical Society 540-894-0445 Nelson County Team Peter A. Agelasto III Rockfish Valley citizen, owner Elk Hill, 3 Ridge Mtn Farm and Wintergreen Country Store, member Historical Society 815 Cavalier Drive VA Beach VA 23451 757-428-8746 agelasto@jnindspring.com Hughes C. Swain Nelson County Farm Bureau 5601 Rockfish Valley Hwy. Alton, Va. 22920 804-361-2084 hswain~ceva.net Frankee Love Director of Economic Development and Tourism Nelson County PO Box 636 Lovingston~ VA 22949 804-263-5239 NelsonCo(_w~esinet.net .Walter E. Morgan III (Chip) Retired physician The Wintergreen Nature Foundation Rt. 1 Box 544 Roseland VA 22967 804-325-7606 dahnechip~aol.com Beth Goodwin Historical Society President 5127 Crabtree Falls Hwy. Tyro, VA 22976 804-277-5526 Bill and Catherine Whitehead 307 Willowbrook Lane Roseland, VA 22967 804-277-5732 A1 Weed Rural Nelson PO Box 401 Lovingston, VA 22949 alweed@ruralnelson.org 13 APPENDIX B List Of Categories Considered In Developing -Heritage Tourism Sites And Events 14 Note: All sites listed should.,,ha~e **some** linkage to heritage. Items that are )~t r~lated to heritage, but which People feel are i. mPortant to the tourism theme may be used in an ancillary list. You may bring this ancillary list with you to your Team's Meeting in April. A. Historic sites, villages, towns, markers, monuments · Architecturally, historically or culturally important structures, museums, memorials, established visitor sites, historic court houses · Cultural landscapes · Special geological or other features · Town walks (self-guided) Be Transportation The Rivanna River (National Treasure/Scenic River), bridges, canals/locks, old railroad beds/ rails to trails, stagecoach routes, old train stations C. Heritage Agriculture, Industry and Commerce · Orchards, wineries, gold or other mines (and self- guided mine walks), old mills, Centennial farms, power plant (e.g. Lake Anna), subsistence farming · Pick-your-own, christmas trees, communes open to public (e.g. Twin Oaks), country stores Do Heritage Churches, Church Music and Church Tours Cemeteri~es and important burial sites (and other genealogical interests), as long as visitors won't desecrate the burial ground Missions in the mountains Arts, Crafts, Antiques, Flea Markets, Galleries, Theaters Important Visitors to the County E.g. Lafayette, Spotswood, even more contemporary celebrities (identifY sites visited) G. Heritage Food and Lodging · Bed & Breakfasts, Country stores, Country Inns, Historical Inns · Foods/herbs specific to region H. Native American heritage · · Ceremonial sites, villages, camp sites, etc. I. African-American Heritage · Schools, culture, history, etc. J. Military Campaigns and Battlefields · Revolutionary war, civil war, reenactment K. Festivals, Fairs, Special Events · Music (Old-time, bluegrass, gospel, FOLK MUSIC, etc.) · Sheep dog trials, horse steeplechases, harness racing, Jack Russell Terrier races, Batteaux te Trails and Tours Greenways trails, River trails including access points, Hiking trails, Biking trails (for racing, cross-country, and road biking), Civil War, Lewis & Clark Vistas, special scenic drives, cassette tours Heritage Schools/Education Blue Ridge School, Brethren Trade School, FUMA, etc. N. Heritage Trades · Furniture, glass, metal, slate, stonecutting, blacksmithing, woodworking, etc. Folk Life and Lore, Legends, Myths, Ghost stories, Literary Sites P. Historic Parks, Gardens and Recreation · Hunting, fishing · Heritage campground, golf courses · Birding events and trails · Picnic sites Q. Heritage equestrian activities. · Trails, farm visits, fox hunting; beagling, horse/hound, coaching days R. Special themes · Seasonal, age, stargazing, CCC work, buffalo route, courthouses, old country 'stores, etc. 15 APPENDIX C List Of Decision Criteria For Narrowing The List Of Sites And Events. ]7 For each site or event, please consider all factors below and then - on the recommendation sheet (see sample on reverse side) - provide an OVERALL judgment of whether it should be promoted as a part of regional heritage tourism. This final decision will be done with your entire county Team at its April meeting. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPORTANCE A. Site is educational in nature or there are educational opportunities at the site B. Highly significant to the history and culture of the area/region (past, present, future) C. Site has official recognition and.credibility(registries, official designations, easements, etc.) D. Site has a unique "hook" or aspect not normally found in usual tours (or other areas) E. Site has seasonal significance? , annual significance? Other? __ F. Site adds a new opportunity not now available (walking tour, float trip, reenactments) G. Special event unique to region (sheep dog trials, plantation garden tours) H. Site appeals to different types of audiences (e.g., by themes, periods of history, age groups) I. Site provides linkages between old and new J. Site helps to balance out kinds of sites/events (i.e., a balance between historic and fun things to see and do) ACCESSIBILITY/LOGISTICS K. If the site if privately owned, does the site already have permission from the owner, or is permission likely for it to be listed on a Heritage Tourism map? L. Site is logistically practical.to visit by tourists (parking is available, brochures and/or interpretive signage or/guides, etc.) M. Number of people that would visit site at one time will not overtax the site's capacity or harm the site. N. Site provides an actual destination' for tourists (e.g., the "mountain vistas" are not a real destination, whereas a lookout tower is a destination). O. Time spent at site to access/experience the site (1 hour or less, half day, day) P. Accessible by public transportation (walking, bus, train, on-going tours) Q. Accessible by main roads (site should not be far off main road) R. Accessible by other modes of transportation (e.g. bike, canoe, horse, etc.) S. Site is not yet accessible but it will he made accessible next year. T. Site has adequate historical information/context which is already available U. Local government and community supports listing the site. V. Site is nearby other sites that could form apackaged trip~loop. W. Site links w/th themes in other counties (e.g. transportation, wineries, orchards, walking tours, historic) (list themes met: ) X. Site can be linked or packaged with other existing popular sites Y..Site provides important infrastructure support for tourism (e.g., provides food, souvenirs, amenities). Z. Site maintenance and' upkeep is do-able and realistic; There is a "funding stream" available for the site's management/continued development/enhancement. AA. Site is appropriate for multiple age groups. IMPACTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF LISTING BB. Listing will not harm or negatively alter the nature of the site or local traditions. CC. .Listing of site could serve to promote its protection and preservation. DD. Linkage to existing state priorities (e.g. Outdoor Plan) or local plans (e.g. Comprehensive Plans). EE.Listing site will support nearby businesses (inns, restaurants, other tourism sites). FF. Generates tourism dollars for area (either through fees or offsite impacts, e.g. B&Bs). GG. Site demonstrates county/city unique strengths (natural beauty, history, uniqueneSs). HH. Does the site have special cultural or other sensitivities? 17 APPENDIX D Sample Thematic Map For "Presidents' Country" APPENDIX E Sample Thematic Map For "Scenic Drives with Architectural Interest" And Sample Accompanying Language. 2O efrerson I-~eglonal ~ves and Villages ~ DRAFT 21 / / / / SAMPLE SCENIC DRIVES FOR ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST · SCENIC RT. 731-RT. 231-RT. 20 LOOP This scenic loop extends in a northeastern direction from the eastern edge of Charlottesville. The Route 231 and 731 portion of the loop reaches as far north as Gordonsville and Liberty Mills in Orange County. The Route 20 portion of the loop ~rosses Route 231 at Liberty Mills and extends southwest through Albemarle County back towards Charlottesville, completing the loop. Also known as the Road to Fredericksburg, Route 231 passes along the eastern edge of the Southwest Mountains, through the towns of Cash's Corner and Cismont. Originally a Native American trail, the path became a road at some point between Nicholas Merriweather's patent of 1727 and the American Revolution. Route 20 is a Virginia Scenic Byway. Also originally a Native American trail, Route 20 probably existed as a road as early as 1735. Also referred to as the Barboursville Road, the Stony Point Road, and the Orange County Courthouse Road, Route 20 was first named Coursey's Road. William Coursey was a local schoolmaster and a planter with significant landholdings. Coursey surveyed the road course and, paid-by the Commonwealth, 'became its first overseer. The road's course did not change in the 18th and 19th centuries, but several of its sharp curves were straightened in the 20th century. Route 20 passes the Rivanna River County Park and the towns of Eastham and Stony Point in Albemarle County and Barboursvilll e in Orange County. · THREE NOTCH'D ROAD One of the original major east-west roads in Albemarle County, Three Notch'd (also known as Three Chopt) Road followed an Native American buffalo hunting path through the region. The Road extended west from Richmond beginning in the 1730s, forming the main street of the village of Charlottesville, and crossed the Rivanna River at Secretary's Ford, just north of Monticello Mountain, and the Blue Ridge Mountains at Jarman's Gap. The Road likely took its name from three notches cut into trees to mark the route..Part of Jack Jouett's famous ride'and the Marquis de Lafayette's efforts to prevent British General Charles Cornwallis from obtaining munitions took place along the Road. Today, sections of the original Three Notch'd Road coincide with Routes 250, 64, 240 and 691 in the County. Within the City, the Road coincides with Main Street between Downtown and the University to the west and Market Street as it leads toward the RiVanna River and the Woolen Mills neighborhood to the east. Settl6rs employing this rome were predominantly English fr6m the Tidewater area, but an estimated tenth of the population was made up of Germans and Scots-Irish who had migrated down the fertile limestone Shenandoah Valley from the port at Philadelphia. Coming into the region from the west through Wood's Gap, they brought with them the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches to an essentially Anglican area. (This paragraph is excerpted from "Charlottesville's Architectural Legacy" by K. Edward Lay.) 22 · SCENXC LOOP 53-795-627-20 Beginning with Route 53, this scenic loop crosses Carters and Patterson mountains just to the south of Charlottesville, heading west past Monticello, and extends due south along Routes 795 and 627. The loop extends along the southern edge of Carters Mountain, passing Ashlawn- Highland and several small lakes. The loop also passes through the towns of Simeon, Overton, and Carters Ridge. Route 20 completes the loop, extending along Carters Mountain's northern edge and rejoining Route 53 just outside Charlottesville. · RIVER ROAD ON THE JAMES The River Road predates the organization of Albemarle County and was the first highway constructed in the area. Built in 1731 ~ the River Road was originally authorized to extend from Goochland Courthouse along the north bank of the James River and the Fluvanna River to the mouth of the Rockfish River. By 1745, this highway had been extended through the center of present-day Albemarle to Jarman's Gap and renamed the Three Notched, or Three Chopt, Road. VRT Research on this road is ongoing - the first volume published documents its successor, the James River Road, built in I920, between Scottsville and Warren in southern Albemarle County. The original River Road follows the meandering path of the James River itself. · GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD The roads encircling Green Mountain, in northwest Albemarle County, include Routes 810, 664, 671, and 601. The route includes Boonesville, Nortonsville, and the Crossroads. Initial research yielded no information about Green Mountain Road. · STAUNTON --'JAMES RIVER TURNPIKE The Staunton Tumpike, also known as the Staunton-James River Turnpike and the Rockfish Gap Turnpike, was completed in 1827 and was the first important addition to the region's original roadways. Authorized in 1818, it took six years to collect funds, secure contractors and begin construction. The Turnpike, which replaced a preexisting road dating to 1790, bisected the southwestern quarter of Albemarle County and extended from Scottsville to Rockfish Gap. The Turnpike created fierce resentment among Charlottesville merchants because it enabled Valley farmers to deliver their goods directly to their local competition in Scottsville. The road followed roughly what is now Route 20 to Keene and extended west along Routes 712 and 692 to Route 250 just east of the crest of the Blue Ridge. · BROWN'S GAP TURNPIKE William Jarman and'Brightberry Brown built the Brown's Gap Turnpike from the Gap southwest to intersect with Three Notch'd Road at Mechums River in 1.806. The original road replaced by the Turnpike predated the Turnpike perhaps by as much as 50 years - as early as 1745, Brown's Gap served as an important .Valley-Tidewater' trade route. The Turnpike itself was built to compete with Three Notch'd Road, which crossed the Blue Ridge at Wood's Gap (now Jarman's Gap) several miles due south. Today, the Turnpike coincides with Routes 810 and 680 in the County. The road passes through Browns Cove, Mountfair, Doylesville, White Hall and Mechums River before joining with Route 250. · BOONESVILLE COUNTRY STORE (SEE PHOTO) H.I. Davis & Sons is located in the town of Boonesville, along Route 601 in the northwest comer of Albemarle County. It is one of the few country stores in Albemarle County still in operation. H.I. Davis inherited the store from his father in 1923, which is the earliest information available on the site. It is a two-story frame structure with elaborate detailing, several additions, and the store entrance in the eastern gable end. The store faces the intersection of Routes 601 a_nd 810. · NORTONSVILLE COUNTRY STORES (SEE PHOTO) There are two historic country stores in the town of Nortonsville, which is located along Route 810 in the northwest comer of Albemarle County. The first store, located on the north side of Route 810, is the older of the two buildings. It is a two-story frame building with a double door and two tall windows along its storefront. The store was probably built around the turn of the twentieth century, but is first officially referred to in 1911 court records. The original owner, Edgar Marshall, also built a small one-room schoolhouse adjacent to the store. The store building now has at least two additions. A two-story porch has also been added to the storefront. The second country store faces the Marshall store across Route 810. Built in the 1920s, the store was owned by the Parrish family, who als0 owned the Marshall store between 1920 and 1982. This two-story structure has a newer front faqade, half-covered by siding, that consistS of a double door in the center of a large display window. · KEENE COUNTRY STORE The town of Keene stands at the junction of Routes 20,'712, and 715 in the southeastern section of Albemarle County - its country store is unique. Built in the 1880s at the junction of the three roads, the store entrance isnot located in one of the gable ends but is located instead in the center of the long southern side of the building. The storefront itself consists of a double door between two tall windows. In 1983, this building was abandoned. Its current status is unknown. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH: Three additional routes in Albemarle County could be considered: Buck Mountain Road (Route 663), Secretary's Road (Route 620), and Wheeler's Road (Route 702 and Route 29). 24 RESOURCES Albemarle County Road Orders, 1744-1748, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett. Albemarle County Road Orders, 1783-1816, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett. The Route of the Three Notch'd Road, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett and Howard Newlon. The Three Notch 'd Road, Virginia Road Traces (VRT) #1, Vols. 1-6. University of Virginia School of Architecture, 1979. A Brief History of the StaUnton and James River Turnpike, by Douglas Young. The Staunton and James River Turnpike, Virginia Road Traces (VRT) #5, Vols: 1-6. University of Virginia School of Architecture, 1980. Causey's Road, Virginia Road Traces (VRT) #6, Vols. 1-2. University of Virginia School of Architecture, 1978. The Fredericksburg Road, Virginia Road Traces (VRT) ~4, Vols. 1-4. University of Virginia School of Architecture, 1978. James River Road Survey, Virginia Road Traces (VRT), Vol. 1. University of Virginia School of Architecture, 1996. An Index to Roads in the Albemarle County Surveyor's Books, 1744-1853, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett. A Brief History of Roads in Virginia, 1607-J840, by Nathaniel Mason'Pawlett. A Guide to the Preparation of County Road Histories, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett. Early Road Location: Key to Discovering Historic Resources? by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett and K. Edward Lay. Albemarle County Roads, 1725-1816, by Nathaniel Mason Pawlett. AIbemarle: Jefferson's County, ! 72 7-1976. John H. Moore, 1976. Country Stores of Albemarle County. Joseph Heisler, 1983. Historical Guide to Albemarle County. The Albemarle Club of Colonial Dames and the Albemarle Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, 1924. New Roads in OM. Virginia. Agnes Rothery, 1929. 25 APPENDIX-F Sample Thematic.Map For "Outdoor Recreation" s Jefferson Regional r Tourism Sites ecreation Route ute 76 (Trans America Trail) tn Trail ch ~kwy Overlook trict irk / Forest mt Area ellysford / DRAFT APPENDIX G Sample Thematic Map For "Rural Villages And Vistas" APPENDIX H Final List Of Heritage Site's And Events Identified Proposed By The Heritage Teams CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE HERTAGE TOURISM SITES The letters listed for each site refer to the categories of interest that the site might fulfill. For a list of the categories, see Appendix B, page 14. The *** indicate the three sites that each counties would like to feature as their top Heritage Tourism attractions. ***MONTICELLO 931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 The center of Thomas Jefferson's private world wag Monticello, the house and plantation that occupied his attention and imaginatiOn for more than 50 years. The exceptional house, ornamented by extensive gardens and surrounded by working farms, was designed entirely by Jefferson, who supervised its construction and expansion-from 1768 until his death in 1826. A,F, I,R 434-984-9822 publicaffairs~monticello.org Open daily from. 9am to 5pm. ***UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ACADEMICAL VILLAGE Thomas Jefferson's "Academical Village" was his final architectural contribution to the state and nation. Built between 1817 and 1826, it provided an ideal model for rational university planning using the architectural language of the classical world to inspire both cultural and intellectual achievement. Two centuries later, it is the onl-y university setting in the New World on the prestigious World Heritage List. It remains in constant use as t he heart of a modem university of over 18,000 students. A, M,P, R 434-924-7969 Rotunda open for'visitors. ***HISTORIC DOWNTOWN CHARLOTTESVILLE Court Square Charlottesville, VA 22902 In 1762 the new town of Charlottesville was founded as a more central county seat for Albemarle County. The town was named for Queen Charlotte3 consort of King George III. At the northeast comer of the town plan a frame courthouse was soon built, behind which, stood a jail, pillory and whipping post. The town's first taverns, shops, and small businesses evolved around Court Square, an area frequented by Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. A, E, F, G, I, K, R 434-977-1783,877-386-1102 visitorscenter~ci.charlottesville.va.us The Albemarle County Historical Society offers walking tours with prior arrangements for groups and on Saturday mornings at 10:00 am from April to Oct. 31 HISTORIC SCOTTSVILLE It was here in 1745 that a meeting was held at the home of Edward Scott to organize the new county of Albemarle. Historic homes, taverns, post office. Located along the James River, Scottsville was an important hub of exploration, commerce and expansion. A,B, C. D Self-guided walking tours available. ADVANCED MILLS-HISTORIC DISTRICT Known as Fray's Mill from 1833 - 1888, when a Post Office was established there and the name was changed in honor of all the "advances" happening in the community. One of Albemarle County's most recognizable milling communities. A, C, R CROZET One of Albemarle County's youngest towns. It began as a rait' 'stop on the C& O Railroad in 1876. Named for Col. Claudius Crozet, the French civil engineer who directed construction of the first railroad tunnels through the Blue Ridge Mts. from 1849-1857. A,B PROFFIT HISTORIC DISTRICT One of the few historically black communities in Albemarle county. Founded by former slave Ned Brown in 1876. A,I LOCUST GROVE TAVERN (MILTON TAVERN) The circa 1812 Locust Grove Tavern with its jail in the lower level is one of the few remaining buildings of the town of Milton. About 1857, a two-story section was added to the west. A BATESVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT Intersection of 692 and 635 This town began as a rural commercial center at the crossing of two early, eighteenth-century roads. Town name was acquired from the resident Bates family sometime between 1825-1835. Town was settled in ~the mid-eighteenth-century. A ASHLAWN HIGHLAND 1000 James Monroe Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Restored home of the 5th president of the United States and clOse friend of Thomas Jefferson. James Monroe's 550-acre estate recreates the atmosphere of a working farm, with strutting peacocks, spinning and weaving demonstrations, nineteenth centm'y cooking demonstrations and tours of the house and gardens. Reflects Federal elegance and style. Throughout the year there are many special events such as the Champagne and Candlelight Tour, Kite Day, the Summer Opera Festival and the Plantation Days Weekend. A, I, K,R 32 434-293-9539 ashlawnjm@aol.com Admission is free, except for fees for special events. PINE KNOT The rustic country retreat of Theodore Roosevelt from 1905 to 1908 while he was president of U.S. A MICHIE TAVERN 683 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Established in 1784 by Scotsman William Michie. The Tavern served as the social center of its community and accommodated travelers with food, drink, and lOdging. In 1927, the Tavern was moved 17 miles to its present location. A tour includes the Tavern's dependent outbuildings, the Virginia Wine Museum, the ca. 1822 Sowell House and the Meadow Run Grist Mill. A,G 434-977-1234 in fo(~_ ~michietavern.com RIVANNA RIVER The normal flow of the Rivanna accommodates canoes and kayaks. Put-ins are at Darden Towe Park, Riverview Park and the Woolen Mills. Many historic locks, dams, and mill ruins can be seen along this State Scenic River. An official Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Water Trail. L,A 434-589-7576 For map or information call the Rivanna Conservation Society at 804-589-7576. SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK Astride a beautiful section of the Blue Ridge Mts. Which forms the eastern rampart of the Appalachian Mountains between PA and GA. Established in 1926. L,P 434-985-7293 HATTON FERRY Rt 625 near Scottsville James A. Brown began operating a store and ferry here in the late 1870's. One of two still operating poled ferries in the continental US. B,R 434-977-1783, 296-7677 Operates from 9 am to 5 pm on Fri, Sat, Sun from mid-April to mid-Oct. SOUTH PLAINS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH The congregation was established in 1820, and the brick church built shortly thereafter. D 434-293-4112 33 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GLENDOWER This lovely 1831-32 church was built by Jefferson's master builders, William B. Phillips, James W. Widderfield, and James Walker. D 434-293 -2347 GRACE CHURCH (KESWICK) This 1847 stone church is a rare example of Gothic style and the only known, work of the well- known architect William Strickland. D 434-293-3549 NORTONSVILLE COUNTRY STORE There are two historic country stores in the town 6fNortonsville, which is located along Route 810 in the northwest comer of Albemarle County. The first store, located on the north side of Route 810, is the older of the two buildings. It is a two-story frame building with a double door and two tall windows along its storefront. The store was probably built around the turn of the twentieth century, but is first officially referred to in 1'911 court records. The original owner, Edgar Marshall, also built a small one-room schoolhouse adjacent to the store. The store building now has at least two additions. A two-story porch has al so been added to the storefront. R BOONESVILLE COUNTRY STORE H.I. Davis & Sons is located in the town of Boonesville, along Route 601 in the northwest comer of Albemarle County. It is one of the feTM country stores in Albemarle County still in operation. H.I. Davis inherited the store from his father in 1923, whichis the earliest information available on the site. It is a two-story frame structure with elaborate detailing, several additions, and the store entrance in the eastern gable end. The store faces the intersection of Routes 601 and 810. R ROCKFISH GAP ROAD Scenic mountain road that traverses the Blue Ridge Mountains by way of the Rockfish Gap. L BROWN'S GAP TURNPIKE William Jarman and Brightberry Brown built the'Brown's Gap Turnpike from the Gap southwest to intersect with Three Notch'd Road at Mechums River in 1806. The original road replaced by the Turnpike~)redated the Turnpike perhaps by as much'as 50 years. As early as 1745, Brown's Gap served as an important Valley-Tidewater-trade route. The Turnpike itself was built to compete with Three Notch'd Road, which crossed the Blue Ridge at Wood's Gap (now Jarman's Gap) several miles due south. Today, the Turnpike coincides with Routes ~810 and 680 in the County. The road passes through Browns Cove, Mountfair, Doylesville, White Hall and Mechums River before joining with Route 250. L 34 JARMAN GAP A winding, gravel, mountain road that deadends at Jarman Gap trail head. L KEENE COUNTRY STORE The town of Keene stands at the junction of Routes 20, 712, and 715 in the southeastern section of Albemarle County. Its country store is unique. Built in the 1880s at the junction of the three roads, the store entrance is not located in one of the gable ends but is located instead in the center of the long southern side of the building. The storefront itself consists of a double door between two tall windows. In 1983, this building was abandoned. R Its current status is unknown. STAUNTON-JAMES RIVER TURNPIKE The Staunton Turnpike, also known as the Staunton-James River Turnpike and the Rockfish Gap Turnpike, was completed in 1827 and was the first important addition to the region's original roadways. Authorized in 1818, it took six years to collect funds, secure contractors and begin construction. The Turnpike, which replaced a preexisting road dating to 1790, bisected the southwestern quarter of Albemarle County and extended from Scottsville to Rockfish Gap. The Turnpike created fierce resentment among Charlottesville merchants because it enabled Valley farmers to deliver their goods directly to their local competition in Scottsville. The road followed roughly what is now Route 20 to Keene and extended west along Routes 712 and 692 to Route 250 just east of the crest of the Blue Ridge. L GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD The roads encircle Green Mountain in northwest Albemarle County, include Routes 810, 664, 671, and 601. The route includes Boonesville, Nortonsville, and the Crossroads. L SCENIC LOOP. RT. 231 TO RT. 20 This scenic loop extends in a northeastern direction fi'om the eastern edge of Charlottesville. The Route 231 and 731 portion of the loop reaches as far north as Gordonsville and Liberty Mills in Orange .County. The Route 20 portion of the loop crosses Route 231 at Liberty Mills and extends southwest through Albemarle County and back towards Charlottesville. L THREE NOTCH.'D ROAD One of the original major east-west roads in Albemarle County, Three Notch'd (also known as Three Chopt) Road followed a Native American buffalo hunting path through the region. The Road extended west from Richmond beginning in the 1730s, forming the main street of the village of Charlottesville, and crossed the Rivanna River at Secretary's Ford, just north of Monticello Mountain, and the Blue Ridge Mountains at Jarman's Gap. The Road likely took its name from three notches cut into trees to mark the route. Part of Jack Jouett's famous ride and 35 the Marquis de Lafayette's efforts to prevent British General Charles Cornwallis from obtaining munitions took place along the Road. Today, sections of the original Three Notch'd Road coincide with Routes 250, 64, 240 and 691 in the County. Within the City, the Road coincides with Main Street between Downtown and the University to the west and Market Street as it leads toward the Rivanna River and the Woolen Mills neighborhood to the east. Settlers employing this route were predominantly English from the Tidewater area, but an estimated tenth of the population was made up of Germans and Scots-Irish who had migrated down the fertile limestone Shenandoah Valley from the port at Philadelphia. Coming into the region frorn the west through Wood's Gap, they brought with them the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches to an essentially Anglican area. (This paragraph is excerpted from "Charlottesville's Architectural Legacy" by K. Edward Lay.) L SCENIC LOOP RT 53 TO RT 795 TO RT 627 Beginning with Route 53, this scenic loop crosses Carter's and Patterson mountains just-to the south of Charlottesville, heading west past Monticello, and extends due south along Routes 795 and 627. The loop. extends along the southern edge of Carters Mountain, passing Ashlawn- Highland and several small lakes. The loop also passes through the towns of Simeon, Overton, and Carters Ridge. Route 20 completes the loop, extending along Carters Mountain' s northern edge and rejoining Route 53 just outside Charlottesville. L RIVER ROAD ON THE JAMES The River Road predates the organization of Albemarle County and was the first highway constructed in the-area. Built in 1731, the River Road was originally authorized to extend from Goochland Courthouse along the north bank of the James River and the Fluvanna River to the mouth of the Rockfish River. By 1745, this' highway had been extended through the center of present-day Albemarle to Jarman's Gap and renamed the Three Notched, or Three Chopt Road. L ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR North Garden, Rt 29 South A family oriented'event featuringagriculture, livestock, crafts, music, amusement rides, exhibits and food. K 434-296-8833 Last weekend of August FALL COURT DAYS Lee Park Juried arts and crafts festival. K 434-296-8548 First weekend in October. 36 SPRING COURT DAYS Lee Park Juried arts and crafts festival with live entertainment. K 434-296-8548 First weekend in April. Free. Food vendors on site. AN NUAL DOGWOOD FESTIVAL McIntire Park Fire works, carnival, food, parade. K 434-961-9824 Last two weekends in April. ASHLAWN - HIGHLAND SUMMER FESTIVAL Classical, folk, jazz, gospel, and contemPorary music. K 434-293-4500 Mid-June through Mid-August. HOLIDAY EVENING TOURS AT MONTICELLO 931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Self-guided evening tours of Monticello feature interpretation in the kitchen and live music in the parlor. Held two evenings each December. K 434-984-9822 publicattairs(~_ ,monticello .org LEWIS AND CLARK FESTIVAL Activities at Lee Park, music, crafts, re-enactments. Exhibits at Albemarle County Historical Society and Virginia Discovery Museum. Bus tours of sites associated with Lewis and Clark. K 434-977-1783 October PLANTATION COMMUNITY WEEKENDS 931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Costumed artisans demonstrate skills and crafts practiced by enslaved and free w(~rkers at Monticello. Held four weekends each year (May, June, July, October). K 434-984-9822 publicattairs(~_~m0nticello.org 37 MONTICELLO INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION AND NATURALIZATION CEREMONY 931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville~ VA 22902 The naturalization ceremony for new citizens on Monticello's West Lawn includes a featured speaker and patriotic music by the Charlottesville Municipal Band. July 4. K 434-984-9822 publicattairs('C_,monticello.org COMMEMORATION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON'S BIRTHDAY 931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902 A ceremony at Jefferson's gravesite includes featured a speaker, music by U.S. Army fife and drum corps, and wreath laying. April 13. K 434-984-9822 publicattairs~monticello.org WHITE HALL VINEYARDS Sugar Ridge Rd, White Hall, VA Spectacular mountain views, award winning wines, and state of the art winery. C 434-823-8615 www.whitehallvineyards.com Open fi.om Wed to Sun, fi.om 11 am to 5pm. OAKENCROFT VINEYARDS 1486 Oakencroft Lane Charlottesville The oldest winery in Albemarle County and closest winery to Charlottesville. Offers views of the Blue Ridge Mountains fi.om a farm setting. C 434-296-4188 www.oakencroft.com Open March weekends fi.om 11 am to 5pm, open April through Dec daily from 11 am to 5pm. CLIFTON INN 1296 Clifton Inn Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911 The 18th century deluxe manor house offers gracious accommodations, award.winmng cms~ne, and a wine cellar. A,G 434-971-1800 38 FLUVANNA HERITAGE TOURISM SITES ***FLUVANNA COUNTY COURTHOUSE DISTRICT Fluvanna County Courthouse Historic District is located along Rte. 15, in Palmyra. The historic Courthouse is open during normal business hours. At other times, access to the courthouse can be provided from the Old Stone Jail Museum. The Museum is open weekends from late May to late October, on Saturdays from 1:00pm to 5:00pm and on Sundays 2:00pm to 5:00pm. A Special tours or group tours can be arranged by calling 804-589~3704. Tours are available in German, Italian and French, as well as English. ***RIVANNA RIVER WATER TRAIL, CROFTON TO PALMYRA The normal flow of the Rivanna accommodates canoes and kayaks. This run is novice level, 6.5 miles with one class I-II rapid. This put-in is a Public Boat Access on Rt. 600. A,B, L, P 434-5.89-7576 avenue, org/rc s ***RIVANNA RIVER WATER TRAIL, MILTON TO CROFTON The normal flow of the Rivanna accommodates canoes and kayaks. The run from Milton to Crofton is a novice level, 10 miles with, no rapids. This put-in is at the end of Randolph's Mill Rd. on Rt 729. A,B,L,P 434-589-7576 avenue.org/rcs ***RIVANNA RIVER WATER TRAIL, PALMYRA TO COLUMBIA The normal flow of the Rivanna accommodates canoes and kayaks. This run is intermediate level, 16 miles long, with several class I-II drops and one class II-III drop. This put-in is at a Public Boat Access on Rt. 53 in Palmyra. A,B, L, P 434-589-7576 avenue.org/rcs ***RIVANNA RIVER WATER TRAIL, WOOLEN MILLS TO MILTON The normal flow of, the Rivanna accommodates canoes and kayaks. The run from Woolen Mills to Milton is intermediate level, 3.7 miles, with several class II -III drops. This put-in is at the east end of East Market Street. A,B, L,P 434-589-7576 avenue.org/rcs 39 ***VILLAGE PARK AND HERITAGE TRAILHEAD Located at northern end of the county seat, Palmyra, thc Village Park is a memorial to all Fluvanna citizens past and present. It also serves as the northern trAilhead for the Fluvanna Heritage Trail, which includes a walking tour of the village. L,P fluvannahefitage.org ***HERITAGE TRAILHEAD WITH ADAACCESS ' Principal entry point to the 3-1/2 mile long Fluvanna Heritage TrAil, which adjoins the Rivanna River for most of its length. This trailhead provides access to the newly opened handicapped accessible trail, which meanders along the Rivanna River to a sandy beach. L,P fluvannahefitage.org ST. ANDREW STREET LOCK Virginia's only junction lock, the St. Andrew Street Lock joined the James River & Kanawha Canal system with the Rivanna Navigation system at Columbia. A,B ABRAMS SCHOOL HISTORIC MARKER Rt. 15 atRt. 649 Commemorates the first consolidated high school for African Americans in Fluvanna. A,M FORK UNION MILITARY ACADEMY HISTORIC MARKER Rt 15 atRt6 Commemorates the school's establishment in 1898. A TEXAS JACK OMOHUNDRO HISTORIC MARKER Rt 15, I mile south of Palmyra A cowboy, Indian fighter, hunter, and actor, who performed on the stage with Buffalo Bill in the 1870s. A POINT OF FORKS ARSENAL HISTORIC MARKER On Rt 6, about .8 miles west of Columbia. The only Revolutionary War action that took place in Fluvanna County was in 1781 at the-State' Arsenal located at Point of Fork. A,J RASSAWEK HISTORIC MARKER On Rt 6, about .8 miles west of Columbia. A Monacan Indian village was located near this site according to John Smith's 1612 map. Rassawek was described by Smith as the "chief habitation" of the Monacan. A,H 40 FORK UNION MILITARY ACADEMY Founded in 1898, FUMA has ever, been known for its high quality of education. A,J,M 434-842-3244 BREMO HISTORIC MARKER Rt. 15 near James River bridge Describes the Bremo plantation area, in particular Upper Bremo. A HISTORIC WILMINGTON Historic Wilmington is on the old Stage Road, and is the location of two early 19th century taverns and Lyles Baptist Church. A,D TOWN OF COLUMBIA Chartered in 1788, this town serves as a connector between the James and Rivanna RiVers, and has been an important transportation hub throughout recorded history. Here was the Monacan Indian capital of Rassawek, the location of the Point of Fork Arsenal which was FluVanna County's most important Revolutionary War site, the locati°n of one of Virginia's first two tobacco inspection warehouses, the junction lock that joined the James River & Kanawha Canal system with the Rivanna Navigation system, said to be the only one of its kind in the entire Commonwealth, the Columbia Train Depot that signifies the importance the railroad played in the life of the town, and many historic homes and churches. Local legend has it that Columbia came within only one vote of becoming the capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, P RIVANNA MILLS Operated under various owners for over one hundred years beginning in 1798. You can still see the remains ora 19-foot high dam, dating from the 1850's. Much of the lock dating from the same era also survives. Visible only fi.om the river. B,C HOLLAND PAGE PLACE An 1865 rustic log house built by John Page upon his return from the Civil War. K : UNION MILLS OUTLET LOCK Built in 1850 for 93-foot long canal boats. Canal and towpath are visible along the trail leading to the to lock, and a small mill ruin is nearby. One of the best preserved, most visible (i.e. not silted in) and accessible locks in the state. A,B Visible fi.om the river. 41 PALMYRA LOCKS AND DAM The stone foundation of Walker Timberlake's Palmyra Mills is all that remains of the five-story brick and frame gristmill. It was built in 1813. The lock was built in 1850 for 93-foot long canal boats. A RIVANNA AQUEDUCT (REMAINS) This three-arched aqueduct once carried the James River & Kanawha canal over the Rivanna River. It was the longest aqueduct on the Canal until it was blown up by the C&O Railroad in 1944. The abutment on the south side of the fiver is all that remains. A, B COHASSET RAILROAD STATION The only building remaining along the Virginia Air Line Railroad, which biSected the county from the James River to Louisa County. A,B SCHEIER NATURAL AREA A 100-acre parcel of land owned and operated by the'Rivanna Conservation Society. This Natural 'Area offers over 3 miles of hiking trails, ponds, and a protected area for wildlife within the watershed. L,P 434-589-7576 avenue.org/rse - Open daily from dawn to dusk. For more information call 434- 589-7576. BREMO RECREATIONAL AREA The Bremo Recreation area was built by Virginia Power for their employees' use on the grounds of the historic house, Spring Garden. It is now leased by the county. L,P RURITAN LAKE A small fishing lake with a public put-in for boats. L,P HARDWARE RIVER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA A bucolic site on the James River, this area offers a put-in for boats as well as camping. L,P PLEASANT GROVE This County-owned historic house was built in 1850, and is located On a public recreation area at the western Heritage Trailhead. A,P,L 42 HARDWARE RIVER Public boat access and picnic area located at the Rt. 6 bridge. roadside. L,P No ramp. Limited parking on JAMES RIVER BOAT RAMP AT COLUMBIA Public access and ample parking; boat ramp; access to both James and Rivanna Rivers: Located across Rt. 690 bridge from the Town of Columbia. B, L JAMES RIVER BOAT RAMp AT BREMO The Game Commission Landing at new Canton is directly across the James River from Bremo Bluff. There is a picnic area and a place for a few cars to park at Bremo Bluff. B,P UNION MILLS CHURCH Built circa 1835 near the Rivanna River for the Union Mills' textile work6rs, this church was moved to the high grounds late in the 19th century. D SITE OF BROKEN BACK CHURCH Commemorates the Methodist conference of 1779, which was the beginning of the formation of the Methodist Church in America. The church site is nearby. D ST. JOSEPH'S SHRINE OF ST. KATHARINE DREXEL CATHOLIC CHURCH Washington St., Columbia, VA 23022 Built in 1885, St. Joseph's Catholic Church was later the site ora Catholic mission school established to provide education to African-American children. Following a visit to St. Joseph's while traveling through Columbia~ Mother Katharine Drexel, a Philadelphia banking heiress who had given her fortune to the Catholic Church and had become a nun, helped to establish the mission school at St. Joseph's. On October 1, 2000, Mother Katharine Drexel was canonized in Rome as the second American-born saint. The name of the Church was changed to St. Joseph's Shrine of St. Katharine Drexel on October 15, 2000. D, F, I 434-842-3970 LYLES BAPTIST CHURCH Rt 60, Palmyra, VA 22963 The site of the first congregation of Dissenters in the county, organized in 1774. D 434-589-3923 43 FORK UNION BAPTIST CHURCH ~ Built by John Hartwell Cocke in 1824 as the Brick Union Church, this is the oldest church building in Fluvanna County. D 434-842-3390 BREMO SLAVE CHAPEL c/o Grace Episcopal Church, Rt. 657 Bremo Bluff, VA 23022. This chapel was built by John Hartwell Cocke in 1835 for his slaves. It was moved in 1883 to Bremo Bluff to become an Episcopal church. D 434-842-3131 ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH Built in 1850 from plans designed by famed architect Alexander Jackson Davis. D 434-842-3715 Rt 6 Scenic Byway This State designated Scenic Byway crosses the whole width of Fluvanna from Columbia in the East through Dixie and Fork Union to Scottsville. It includes historic Columbia with its James River connection, travels through the center of Fork Union by the historic Fork Union Military Academy and then through rolling countryside to the James River town of Scottsville, L OLD STAGECOACH VILLAGE DRIVE A scenic drive through small country villages that follows the old stagecOach route from Columbia to Jefferson's Monticello. L THREE NOTCH'D ROAD HISTORIC TRAIL The first route west from Richmond fo the mountains and an historic Native American' trail. L "JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND" DRIVE Featuring historic places on and near Route 15 in Virginia's Piedmont. L www.cr, nps. gov/nr/travel/onlineitin-trav.htm#alpha RT. 601 SCENIC DRIVE A short 5-mile drive between two of Fluvanna's most historic and picturesque towns, county seat of Palmyra and the quaint village of Wilmington. The route passes the Holland-Page Place, an 1865 log cabin owned by the Historical Society. L SCENIC VILLAGE DRIVE A scenic drive through small country villages, from Columbia to Scottsville. L 44 COLUMBIA DAY A celebration of Columbia's history, culture, and community spirit. This event, held the last weekend in September, includes: music, arts and crafts vendors, food vendors, information tables for local civic organizations, classic cars, children's games and activities (carriage rides, pony rides, petting zoo, moon bounce, dunking booth, and much more), and an evening street dance. A POINT OF FORK DAYS Held at Columbia boat landing. Features Revolutionary War encampment, reenactment of 1781 Battle of Point of Fork, authentic reproductions of James River Batteaux Coatteau fides offered to public on the Rivanna River), 18th Century music, 18th Century wOrship service, food vendors, and more. Takes place the first or second weekend in June. K,J OLD FARM DAY Sponsored by the Historical Society and held the first Saturday in October each year, this festival honoring Fluvanna's rural past is the.largest community gathering and celebration in the county. Activities include; reenactment encampments, blacksmithing, hayrides, cider pressing, arts and crafts, food and more. K 434-980-4449 oldfarmday@yahoo.com OLD COURTHOUSE INN P.O Box 157, Palmyra, VA 22963. Bed and Breakfast open on weekends. G 434-589-1977 FORK UNION DRIVE-IN THEATER One of the few operating sloped,, grassy drive-ins in the state. Shows double features on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings starting at dusk: Bring lawn chairs or blankets to'sit out under the stars. - A,R 434-842-3624 CARYSBROOK PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Former high school now used for a cOunty library and restored performing.avt~s~center: E 434- 84~-T~3' ' 45 GREENE HERITAGE TOURISM SITES ***SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK Lies astride a beautiful section of the Blue Ridge Mountains, which forms the eastern rampart of the Appalachian Mountains between PA and GA. Established in 1926. L,P 703-999-2266, 703-999-2299 ***HISTORIC STANARDSVlLLE Courthouse, Jail, Lafayette Hotel, Homes and Churches built in the mid 1800's. A ***RT 810 SCENIC DRIVE Winding road at thebase of the mountain. Along this road you will see Mt. Vernon Church, Bingham Methodist Church, Blue Ridge School, and Snow's General Store. L SPOTSWOOD PYRAMID HISTORIC MARKER' Rt 33 just north of county line Commemorates Gov: Alexander Spotswood's Expedition of 1716 when Englishmen first saw the Shenandoah Valley. A JOHN RUCKER'HISTORICMARKER Rt 29 Ruckersville A descendant of the Huguenot immigrant Peter Rucker, John Rucker (d. 1794) founded the - village of Ruckersville, naming it for his uncle, Captain John Rucker. Located at the Ruckersville Antique Shops and Flea Market. A CUSTER'S ENGAGEMENT MARKER Rt 230, 619 intersection Near this site on March 1, 1864, Major-General J.E.B.Stuart's Confederate cavalry engaged Brigadier-General George A. Custer's Union cavalry in what is called locally the Battle of Stanardsville. A OC~ONIA S'l'O Ni~ 46 --~ APPALACHIAN TRAIL Hike through or day-trek on the 25 miles of Appalachian Trail that lie in Greene County. Moderately challenging rUgged terrain with dazzling views. L,B,P 304-535-6331,800-282-8223 www.atconf, org SWIFT RUN GAP RANGER STATION Serves as a major entrance point to the Shenandoah National Park, where US 33 crosses the Blue Ridge. Park Rangers at the station can answer questions and give other assistance. .L 703-999-2266, 703-999-2299 SOUTH RIVER FALLS HIKE Located at mile marker 62.8 off the Skyline Drive this hike is 2.5 miles round-trip to the falls. Picnic table at trail head. L GIBSON MEMORIAL CHAPEL AND MARTHA BAGBY BATTLE HOUSE Rt 627 Formerly the Blue Ridge Industrial School this is among the most architecturally significant buildings dating from the twentieth century in Greene County. The chapel, begun in 1929 and consecrated in 1932, was built according to designs given to the school by architect Ralph Adams Cram of Boston. Cram was one of the most prominent American architects practicing during the first half of the century. The chapel and house are also significant as the oldest remaining buildings at the Blue Ridge School, an institution important in the religious and educational history of central Virginia and Greene County. M BINGHAM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH Rt 8t0 Lies directly across the county line between Albemarle and Greene near Route 810. Circa 1796, this it is the oldest church building in Greene County. D STANAR.DSVILLE METHODIST CHURCH Blakey St., Stanardsville Built in 1854, townspeople nursed soldiers here during the Civil War. A,D 434-985-3888 SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH AND SCHOOL Shiloh Rd. off Rt. 33. Historic African-American church and school as well as a marker for the Confederate dead. D,I 434-985-1180 47 RT 609 SCENIC DRIVE This winding road is the Old Fredericksburg Turnpike. L CELT RD. (RT. 622) SCENIC DRIVE Scenic drive from Stanardsville through southern Greene County. L SNOW'S COUNTRY STORE Dyke, Rt 810 An old time store on Route 810, it houses the Dyke Post Office. R RT 230 SCENIC DRIVE' Old Madison Courthouse Road goes past Hood and Wolftown. L GREENE COUNTY FAIR Route 230 at the Conway River Held the first week of August, the fair is the county's largest event. Fair goers bring their own lawn chairs for the free performance by a bluegrass/country band each evening. K 'AUTUMN HILL VINEYARD 301 RiverDrive, Stanardsville Family owned and operated, this historic vineyard in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains was established in 1979, and has been producing award-winning wines since 1986. Wines: serious red wines. C 434-985-6100 aummnhill@mindspring, com Call-for listing of weekends that they are open for tours and tastings. GOOSE POND COTTAGE South of Rt 33 along Appalachian Trail Operated by the Appalachian Trail Conference. This cottage is for rent on a per-night basis to ATC members. G 304-535-6331,800-282-8223 www.atconf, org 48 POCOSIN COTTAGE North of Rt 33 along Appalachian Trail Operated by the Appalachian Trail Conference. This cottage isfor rent on a per-night basis to ATC members. G 304-535-6331,800-282-8223 www.atconf, org LAFAYETTE HOTEL Main St., Stanardsville Built in 1840, this elegant hotel has also been used as a bar, lawyers' offiCes, and a buggy and harness shop. A,G 434-985-6345 Closed Mondays EDGEWOOD FARM BED AND BREAKFAST Rt 667 Built circa 1790 fOr the overseer of Catlett Conway's'farm. Guests on the 130-acre farm have access to mowed paths to the Conway River (also known as Middle River). G 434-985-3782 ROSEBROOKE BED AND BREAKFAST Rt 631 Built by the Church of the Brethren in '1923 to educate mountain children, and later used as a resettlement center when the Shenandoah National Park was started. The classrooms are now bedrooms and the old school dining room i.s a reception hall. G BLUE RIDGE POTTERY Rt 33 two miles east of entrance to Skyline Drive Housed in a former stagecoach inn, this craft center offers pottery reflective of the colors of the Blue Ridge. E 800-826-4846 Open daily 9 am to 6 pm. RANDELL FREY 18TH CENTURY FURNITURE REPRODUCTION 2585 South River Road, Stanardsville Showroom and studio E 434-985-7631 Open Mon to Fri, from 8 am to 4:30 pm and on Sat by appointment. 49¸ RUCKERSVILLE ANTIQUE SHOPS AND FLEA MARKET Rt 33 and 29 intersection Regional center for antique shopping with 14 sites within 'a three-mile radius. One, the Greene House Shops (804-985-2438) has 48 dealers, and another, Willie's Auction House (804-985- 7530), has a weekly auction and flea market. E Link with John Rucker Marker LOUISA HERITAGE TOURISM SITES ***LOUISA COUNTY COURTHOUSE The fourth Louisa Courthouse was dedicated August 17, 1905. D. Wiley Anderson, the architect built a Colonial Revival structure, which was added to the Virginia Landmarks Register by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources. Open 8:30 - 5:00 weekdays. A ***PROSPECT HILL PLANTATION INN 2887 Poindexter Road, Trevilians, Virginia 23093 An authentic 18th century plantation in the foothills of Central Virginia near Charlottesville this home fostered generations of hospitality and fine cuisine in the tradition of another lover of Epicurean delights, Thomas Jefferson, who lived just a few miles up the road at Monticello. Now an Inn with rooms and suites with private baths. A,G (800) 277-0844 ***THE GREEN SPRINGS HISTORIC DISTRICT From the earliest days of settlement in the Piedmont, the Green Springs area has been known for its exceptional fertility, prosperity, and beauty. The Green Springs Historic District is six-l/2 miles long, . four-1/2 miles wide, bounded by Route 15 and Route 22 in the western end of Louisa County. Its farms, buildings, and families represent many generations of agricultural, architectural, and social history. Contrasted with the surrounding hilly land with its thin soil and scrub woodlands, this 14,000-acre bowl, a geological formation that defines Green Springs, is composed of lush, rolling pastures. In the 1720s a group of Quakers settled near Camp Creek, followed soon after by several Hanover County, Virginia families, who established major farms and, over succeeding generations, intermarried, adding farmhoUSes and manors through the mid- 1860s; Altogether, more than 250 original 18th- and 19th- century homes, barns and other outbuildings survive. The area has been farmed continuously for more than 200.years and the fertility of the land has made possible it's remaining unspoiled today. In the 19th century Green Springs was famous for its abundant wheat crops. In 1841 Cyrus McCormick chose to testhis reapers on the wheat fields of Green Springs. A, C,D, L www.nps.gov/grsp/ 50 PATRICK HENRY SITE Roundabout Plantation was the home of Patrick Henry in Louisa when he was our representative in the House of Burgesses. It was during this time that Patrick Henry spoke out against the Stamp Act. A SHELTON'S MILL Built in the early 1700's by James B. Shelton, this mill was destroyed by fire in 1859 and rebuilt by Shelton descendants. Private property but visible from the road. C FREDERICKS HALL AREA & FREDERI.CK HALL CEMETERY A village, this is the location of the home (built in 1863) of Frederick Harris, the first president of the Louisa Central Railroad. The cemetery contains the grave of Frederick Harris. A BUMPASS AREA A village created by the Union Railroad in the mid-1800's. post office. A Known for the Bumpass store and MUSEUM OF LOUISA COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Built in 1868 after the earlier jail burned this historic jail was discontinued from use.in 1967 because of the poor physical condition of the jail. The Louisa County Historical Society now rents the building from the county for use as its museum. Open 2- 4 Sat. and Sun. A LOUISA DEPOT The freight station was first built in 1892, and the Gothic style Depot (passenger station) was built in 1902. No longer open but may be viewed from the outside. B BOSWELL TAVERN MARKER "Here on June 3, 1781 Col. Tarleton burned 12th continental army supply wagons while on the way to Monticello. On June 1, 1781 General Anthony Wayne met with General Lafayette at the tavern and brought with him 1500 troops." Private home is not on the tour. A,C Home is Private TREVILIANS BATTLEFIELD HISTORICAL SITE MARKERS (1)- Near here Custer of Sheridan's cavalry raiding westward, got between Fitz Lee's division and the rest of Wade Hampton's cavalry, capturing wagons. The Confederates recaptured the wagons but withdrew to the west after a fierce conflict June 11, 1864. (2)-Here on June 12, 1864, Sheridan's cavalry, coming from Trevilians, attacked Wade Hampton, who had taken position 51 across the road. A bloody engagement followed. Fitz Lee joined Hampton, and the Union was driven back. That night Sheridan retired eastward. A,J CCC CAMP HISTORIC MARKER Erected in 1996 for the Civilian Conservation Corps Company 2359 or camp P-82. The land for the camp was leased in 1934. The camp was constructed near the Louisa Fire Tower. A MINERAL TRAIN STATION Not open to the public but can be appreciated from the outside. A,B JOHN MERCER LANGSTON MARKER "(1829-1898) 1 st African American to represent Virginia in U. S. Congress (4th congressional seat); 1 st African American elected Official (city council Oberlin Ohio); Minister to Hait;: 1 st President of Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute; founder and Dean of law department at Howard University.' A,I LOUISA FIRE TOWER 430 W. Main St., Louisa Placed on the Historic Landmark Register in 1995. Built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). A Can be viewed but not climbed. LOUISA WALKING TOUR Features 24 sites in the town of Louisa, four churches, county buildings, businesses and private homes, Information can be obtained at the town office and various merchants. A,D,L PHILIPPI SCHOOL One of few African-American schools still standing in Louisa. Many African-American schools were organized by churches and community members. M, I MINES OF MINERAL Mining in Louisa started with gold, then iron and later pyrite and sulphur. Gold mining was prevalent during the 1830s and peaked by 1850. As early as 1731 "Iron Patents" were issued in Louisa. By 1837 two Iron furnaces existed in the county. Pyrite was mined as early as 1850 but reached industrial levels by the 1880's. By the mm of the century nearly half of the United States annual production of iron pyrite came from three Louisa County mines. Sulfuric Acid was manufactured from this pyrite. C- Special box, not specific site marked on the map 52 PENDLETON WAYSIDE This picnic area is also a memorial to Dr. E. B Pendteton, a revered country doctor who practiced medicine in Louisa County into his eighties. P MT. PLEASANT METHODIST CHURCH The second oldest Methodist Church, it was founded in 1812. The present building was erected in 1860. D 540-854~5297 ELK CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH Organized in 1813 as the_ Elk Creek Meeting House, the present building was built in 1848/49. The Portico was added in 1914. It was used as a hospital during the Civil War. D FOSTER CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH Organized in 1866 after 39 members left Berea Baptist Church to start their own church, Rev. Samuel Quarles was the first Pastor. D 540-967-2940 ROSENEATH CEMETERY Has Revolutionary and Civil War graves. Private property but visible from the road. D,J ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL In Green Springs Historic District, this chapel was built in 1888 by the Morris and Overton families. The Morris family built several homes in the Green Springs Area, and the Overtons were a prominent Louisa family. D ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH Built in 1845 for the Green Springs area by'local subscription, with the largest donations from' the Watson and Morris families. D GOLDMINE BAPTIST CHURCH Organized in 1801. The earlier frame building was replaced by the present building in 1852 and dedicated on June 6, 1852. D 53 SOUTH ANNA BAPTIST CHURCH Founded in 1785. The present structure was built in about 1850. D 540-894-5678 OAKLAND CEMETERY First used following the Battle of Trevilians Station June 11 - 12, 1864 when 83 casualties were buried. The cemetery was incorporated in 1870. It is now a part of the town walking tour. D LASLEY METHODIST CHURCH Founded in 1806, this is the oldest Methodist Church in Louisa. The church was organized by John Lasley. The land for the present site was deeded in 1812. D GILBOA CHRISTIAN CHURCH Organized in 1834 the church was built in 1857 and dedicated in August 1858. D 540-894-5620 MT. GARLAND CHURCH Organized in 1866 with Rev. William Howe. D 540-872-5462 LITTLE RIVER CHURCH Organized by John Waller in 1791, the present building was dedicated on July 15, 1855. The cemetery has several revolutionary graves. D 540-872-3414 FORK BAPTIST CHURCH Organized in 1824 with Timothy Swift as the first minister. D PROVIDENCE CHURCH Began as a meeting house in 1747 and used ever since. John Todd preached here. It is believed to be the oldest wood-frame Presbyterian Church with continuous worship in the United States. It is one of the few remaining wood frame churches and among the first to be built in the central part of the state by the Presbyterian denomination. D BEREA BAPTIST CHURCH Outgrowth of a church organized by Rev. John Poindexter in 1795. The present brick building was constructed in 1856 - 57 and is an example of a transition from Classic Revival to Gothic Church architecture. D 54 ~ RT 617 & 640 SCENIC DRIVE This drive will take you through the Green Springs Historic District and southern Louisa County. L JACK JOUETT'S ROUTE & CUCKOO TAVERN MARKER From theCuckoo Tavern that stood here, Jack Jouett rode to Charlottesville, by the Old Mountain Road, in time to warn the members of the Virginia govemrnent of the. coming of Tarleton's British Cavalry, June 3, 1781. A,J RT. 652 SCENIC DRIVE Beautiful scenic drive crossing bridges over Lake Anna. L RT 1'5 SCENIC DRIVE Scenic Drive through the border of Green Springs, a National Historic District designated by the US Department of the Interior. L AIR SHOW Louisa County Airport, Freeman Field A family-oriented event including static aircraft displays, airplane rides and aerobatics along with a car show and lots of good food. First weekend in September. K 540-967-0050 MINERAL BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL PO Box 98 Dahlonega, GA 30533 Held in July at Walton Park in Mineral, this festival is family oriented with music, concessions, and camping. K 434-399-9928, 540-849-5660 CHRISTOPHER RUN BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL 7149 Zachary Taylor Hwy, Mineral, VA 23117 Held the first weekend of June, on the shores of Lake Anna, this festival features off-stage field picking 24 hours a day, Family oriented, music, workshops, vendors, and camping. K 540-894-4744 www.chh stopherrunblue~ass, corn 55 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION A two unit nuclear station supplying Dominion Virginia Power with more than 20 percent of its total generation. It is the largest nuclear station in Virginia and can generate almost two million kilowatts of electric power. It is located on Lake Anna, a 13,000-acre lake created in the early 70's for the sole purpose of providing cooling water for the power station. A visitor's center offers educational displays and tours. C SEAY FURNITURE AND ANTIQUES Located in the town of Louisa it was founded by James Early Seay in the 1920's and is the oldest and largest in Louisa. E 540-967-1340 DOUGLAS SEAY CUSTOM FURNITURE AND ANTIQUES Located at PendletOn, this is mn by the owner who does his ownwork with-one helper. E 540-894-4701 SPROUSE'S ~CUSTOM FURNITURE Run by Ernest' Sprouse, son of Willie who started the business in 1952. E FULLER'S CABINET SHOP A cabinetmaker that comes from a family of cabinetmakers. E CARDINAL'S FURNITURE SHOP Located on Route 33, owned and operated by Clarence R. Cardinal Jr. E 540-894-4434 TWIN OAKS COMMUNE 138 Twin Oaks Rd. Louisa VA 23093 Perhaps the oldest community of its type in the country. The group sells tofu, hammocks and- unique chairs handcrafted from polypropylene rope and oak frames. Their products are among the finest on the casual furniture market distributed throughout the United States. Tours and herbal workshops. C,R 540-894-5126 56 ~ NELSON MAP SITES ***WALTON'S MOUNTAIN MUSEUM 6484 Rockfish River Road This building where Earl Hamner attended school now. houses replicas of sets from "The Walton's," the memorable television series he created. F, A 888-266-1981,804-831-2000 Open Daily from 10 am to 4 'pm from March'through November. ***WINTERGREEN NATURE FOUNDATION The Wintergreen Nature Foundation is an independent; non-profit organization easily accessible at the Wintergreen Resort on the Blue Ridge. The Foundation provides information concerning all varieties of natural history activities in the unspoiled mountains and streams of the county. The focUS of the Foundation is on education and research about the Blue Ridge. L,P 434-325-1109 ***SAUNDERS" ORCHARD Rt 56 west between Rt 151 and U. S. 29 More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County. Fall apple picking activities and festivals. Farm antiques on display. C '434-277-5455, 800-282-8223 Open July 15 through Oct 31: Mon to Sat 9 am to 5 pm. ***FLIPPIN-SEAMAN PACKING SHED Rt 56 west of Tyro More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County. Fall apple picking activities and festivals. C 434-277-5824, 800-282-8223 Open during fall, Mon through Sat from 10 am to 4:30 pm; Sun from 1 pm to 5pm. ***FITZGERALD'S ORCHARD Rt 682 offRt 56 west in Tyro More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County. Fall apple picking activities and festivals. C 434-277-5798, 800-282-8223 Open during fall, Mon through Sat. 57 ***DRUMHELLER'S ORCHARD 1130 Drumheller's Orchard Lane offRt 56 More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County. Fall apple picking activities and festivals. C 434-263-5036, 800-282-8223 Open during fall, Mon through Sat from 9 am to 5 pm; Sun from noon to 5 pm. ***DICKIE BROTHERS ORCHARD Dickie Rd. offRt 56 west in Roseland More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County. Fall apple picking activities and festivals. C 434-277-5516,804-277-8609, 800-282-8223 Open during fall, Mon through Fri from 8 am to 5 pm; Sat & Sun from I0 am to 5 pm. ***THE APPLE SHED U.S 29 near Rt. 6 west More than 40 varieties of apples grown in Nelson County..Fall apple picking activities and festivals. C 434-263-8843, 800-282-8223 Open fall through winter: 9 am to 6 pm. WOODSON'S MILL Rt. 778 in Lowesville Built in 1794, reconstructed in 1845, still in continuous operation. Mill uses water-driven millstones to grind wheat, corn and other grains. Also houses an operating cider press. A,C 800-282-8223 Open Sat. 9 am to 5 pm. LOVINGSTON COURTHOUSE Built in 1809, Shelton Crostwait formally submitted the plans, although according to oral tradition Thomas Jefferson assisted in the plans, which is suggested by the graceful architecture of the first building. A KANAWHA CANAL Midway Mills A continuous canal comprised of dams, locks, culverts, tunnels and aqueducts. A towpath extends from Richmond over the Blue Ridge Mountains, and links up with the Ohio River. The James River and Kanawha Canal finished its first section, from Richmond to Lynchburg, in 1840. It reached Buchanan in 1851. The canal was one of the largest enterprises of its time: C,L 58 HISTORIC HOUSE TOUR Tours of historic buildings and homes open for tours. Third Saturday in May. A 434-263-5239 Fee, 10am -5 pm OAK RIDGE ESTATE 2300 Oak Ridge Road 1802 Mansion and 500 acre estate, former home to one of the 10 wealthiest Americans. Fine example of Virginia plantation home, offering both guided ad self guided tours, fox hunting, _ Nelson County Festival of local crafts & food, and harness races in future. A,K,C 434-263-8676 www.oakrid~eestate.com By appointment only. BLUE RIDGE GEOLOGY-KEITH FRYE MEMORIAL U.S. 29 just south of Lovingston Located at The Nelson County Tourism Center/Library. This outdoor exhibit of Nelson County rocks displays all the various rock types of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. Illustrated information regarding the composition of these rocks and the formati°n of the Blue Ridge is available on an outdoor display board. A NELSON COUNTY WAYSIDE U.S. 29, 7 miles north of Lovingston This conveniently located picnic area, a memorial to Hurricane Camille, is located along the Rockfish River and has tables, barbecue grills and overhead shelters. P 800-282-8223 Open daily during daylight hours. THREE RIDGES WILDERNESS AREA Recently designated as a Wilderness Area, these rugged 4000-foot mountains are separated by the beautiful Tye River Valley. The Appalachian Trail crosses the peaks of these mountains as it traverses some of the most pristine forestland in the state. L,P THE PRIEST WILDERNESS AREA Recently designated as a Wilderness Area, these rugged 4000-foot mountains are separated by the beautiful Tye River Valley. The Appalachian Trail crosses the peaks of these mountains as it traverses some of the most pristine forestland in the state. L,P 59 'rYE RIVER Massie's Mill, Nash Canoeing. Boat launch on Rt 56 southeast of Tryo, suitable for canoes and whitewater kayaks. L,P ROCKFISH RIVER Canoeing. Put in at Rt 6 bridge and take out at Nelson County Wayside. A scenic run with just enough twists and tums to make it interesting, no rapids, but some good paddle skills required. L,P CRABTREE FALLS Rt. 56 A two-mile hike to the top of the highest waterfalls east of the Mississippi with a spectacular view of mountains and forest. L,P - 540-291-2188, 800-282-8223 Open dawn to dusk APPALACHIAN TRAIL Runs parallel to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Hike through or day-trek on the 25 miles of Appalachian Trail that liein Nelson County, moderately challenging rugged terrain with dazzling views. L,B,P 304-535-6331,800-282-8223 www.atconf, org BIKE TRAILS This rural region offers miles and miles of tranquil country roads winding past meadows and streams, with gentle rolling hills near the James RiVer and challenging terrain in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Five routes are mapped out: Oak Ridge Loop - 29 miles, Walton's Mountain Museum Loop 31 miles, Woodson's Mill Loop - 24 miles, two routes along Blue Ridge Parkway - 22 and 40 miles. The Nelson County visitor center on Hwy 29 in Lovingston has county road maps and cue sheets for theSe fides. Call 800-282 -8223 and ask for the Outdoor Brochure with cue sheets. L 800-282 -8223 5 trails BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, OVERLOOKS AND TRAILS The Parkway was built during the Great Depression as a way to link Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains natiOnal parks by way of a recreational motor road. It was constructed in segments, usually from one major access point to another. Construction began in 1935 near the North Carolina - Virginia border and ended with completion of the section around Grandfather Mountain in 1987. The 469-mile Parkway preserves the natural and cultural features along its path and reveals'the tremendous diversity of our southern Appalachian region. Trails and hundreds of parking overlooks open up the area for exploration. L,P GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST The 1-million-acre George Washington National Forest is. steeped in American and pre- American tradition: a one-time home for Indians, a passageway for pioneers and a battleground during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Today, the forest offers an assortment of recreational experiences in one of the East's largest expanses of pristine land. Available activities include hiking, fishing, backpacking, biking, camping, wildlife viewing, and scenic driving. More than 900 miles of hiking trails including 60 miles of the legendary Appalachian Trail -- and 2,000 miles of roads, crisscross the forest. L,P (888) 265-0019, (540) 265-5100 SPRUCE CREEK PARK Gardens and picnic area P JAMES RIVER Canoeing, boat launch located at Howardsville, on Rt 626; Rt 56 in Wingina; the James River State Park; Mostly flat water suitable, for canoes and kayaks. L,P STATE FISH HATCHERY Rt. 690 I/2 mile off Rt. 56 A rearing station for 170,000 newly hatched brook, brown, and rainbow trout, which are released to stock streams east of the Blue Ridge. Parkway. C 540-377-2418 Open daily 8 am to 3:30 pm. DRIVING TOURS Arrington, Norwood and the James River Apple Blossom Tour; Walton's Mountain Museum and Oak Ridge Estate; Peaches, Apple Orchards and Woodson's Mill; Mountain Tour: Trails, Falls, Fish, Farms, and Apples; Alton Mountain and Rockfish Valley Tour; Antique Trail; Historic Tour of Nelson County. L 61 BATTAEU FESTIVAL Wingina An eight-day festival featuring authentic replicas of the sleek, shallow-draft merchant boats upon which the Old Dominion rode to its first era of economic prosperity. Beginning in Lynchburg, the festival moves along a 200 year-old route, stopping each day in historic towns and communities along the way. Each evening is a celebration of the heritage of this legendary river basin in music, song, dance, and storytelling, plus lots of plain old-time Virginia socializing. K Fourth Weekend in June. WINTERGREEN PERFORMING ARTS FESTIVAL Now in its sixth season, Wintergreen Performing Arts presents a variety of musical performances for a touch of culture in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Wintergreen Summer Music Festival includes a Music Academy established for young, outstanding musicians selected for their performance capabilities. K 434-325-7583 ,WINTERGREEN WINERY Rt 664 Award winning wines, panoramic views, picnic area, gift store. Wines: Chardonnay, Cabemet Sauvignon, Riesling, Blush, Meflot, and a Raspberry desert wine. C,G 434-361-2519 Open Jan to April, noon to 5 PM. Extended hours in the summer with tours and tastings daily from 10 AM to 6 PM. AFTON MOUNTAIN VINEYARDS Rt 631 Award wiiming wines, and wine cave tours. Gourmet picnic foods and picnic area with views of the Blue Ridge. Wines: Chardonnay, Gewurztraminer, Cabemet Sauvignon, Riesling, and Pinot Noir. C,G 540-456-8667 Tours, tastings, picnic area open daily except Tuesday 10 am to 6 pm, Jan through Feb 11 am to 5 pm. MOUNTAIN COVE VINEYARDS AND WINEGARDEN Rt 718 Oldest continuously operating winery in Virginia with a shaded picnic area, performance pavilion, hiking and mountain biking trails, and breath taking views. Wines; Blended Reds, whites, and roses, as well as a wide line of fruit wines. C,G 434-263-5392 Tours and tastings available~ Wed through Sun from noon to 6 pm. 62 HILLTOP BERRY FARM AND WINERY Rt 612 Features "true to the fruit wines." Specialty selection includes raspberry, blackberry, apple, peach, plum, and Virginia Blush. C,G 434-361-1266 Tours and tastings from April through Jan, Wed through Sun from 11 am to 5 pm. Extended hours during blackberry season from July 4 through Sept 5, 9 am to 6 pm. MARK ADDY INN 56 Rhodes Farm Drive, Nellysford Beautifully restored and lovingly appointed, the Mark Addy offers the richness and romance of a bygone era with five porches and 12.5 acres. G 434-361 - 1101,800-278-2154 www.mark-abb¥.com MEANDER INN BED AND BREAKFAST 3100 Berry Hill Rd (Rt 612) in Nellysford (off Hwy i 51) Located in the foothills of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains on 40 acres of horse pasture and traversed by the Rockfish River. G 434-361-1121 THE LOOKING GLASS HOUSE 10273 Rockfish Valley Hwy, At:ton This gracious Victorian farm home, built in 1848, has been restored and furnished with family antiques. Formal, yet rural home with wicker-filled porches, which overlook 10 acres. Full gourmet breakfast. G 540-456-6844, 800-769-6844 www.lookingglasshousebb.com VALLEY GREEN ARTS & CRAFT GALLERY Rt 151, Nellysford Fine arts and photographs, pottery, baskets, glass, fiber, wood, florals, dolls, and other fine crafts. E 434-361-9316 ~vww.valley~reengallery. com 63 NELSON COUNTY VISITOR CENTER U.S. 29 just south of Lovingston Free maps, brochures, directions, calendar of events, tours, and other information about Nelson County and surrounding areas are available at the Visitor Center. A, G 434-263-5239 www. NelsonCounty.com SPRUCE CREEK GALLERY Rt 151 just south of Nellysford Gallery of local artists: pottery, baskets, jewelry, paintings, weaving, woodworking, sculpture, and more. E 434-361-185.9 www.sprucecreekgallery, com NEW WORLD STONE QUARRY Route 800, near intersection at Route 617 in Schuyler The 60,000 sq. ft. historic soapstone mill was built entirely of stacked soapstone slab in 1913. Today, the New World Stone Company and its artisan tenants operate the original equipment. Tours feature monumental and fine sculpture, historic buildings, quarries, and a historic.photo collection. C 434-831-1051 www.newworldstone.eom KRIS KRINGLE CHRISTMAS TREE FARM Cut-Your-Own Christmas Tree Farm. C 434-263-5239 Open during season. BEECH GROVE CHRISTMAS TREE FARM Cut-Your-Own Christmas Tree Farm. C 434-263-5239 Open during season. MOUNTAIN VIEW CHRISTMAS TREE FARM Cut-Your-Own Christmas Tree Farm. C 43.4-263-5239 Open during season. 64 EDIBLE LANDSCAPE 361 Spirit Ridge Ln., Alton Offering a variety of landscape plants that are edible as well as beautiful. C 434-361-9134 www.eat-it.com GLENNTHORNE BERRY FARM Pick-Your-Own Berries. Strawberries, Raspberry, Blackberries, and Blueberries. C,G Open during season. 65 APPENDIX I List Of Additional Heritage Sites That Might Be Considered I'n The Future, As They Become Suitable For Tourism. WAIT LIST These are sites that need fitrther development or are not quite visitor-ready, but should be considered for fitture inchtsion in Heritage Tourism. SHADWELL Charlottesville/Albemarle Between the Rivanna River and Rt 250, 2 miles southeast of I 64. Peter Jefferson acquired this land in 1735, and built the house about 1737. ,Thomas Jefferson was born here in 1742. The house burned in 1770, and Jefferson moved to Monticello. A,C Not ready yet NATIONAL BIRDING TRAIL Fluvanna Fluvanna Heritage Trail and Rivanna River Water Trail to be included in list'ofHeritage Bird Trails that is under development. L Not ready yet PALMER COUNTRY MANOR Fluvanna Rt 2 Palmyra G 434-589-1300 Needs Permission FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL Fluvanna The first African American high school in Fluvanna County was a one-room school Not Ready for visitors DUNBAR SCHOOL - A ROSENWALD SCHOOL Fluvanna Not ready for visitors GAS STATION Greene Needs permission SOUTH RIVER CHURCH Greene D Needs Permission 67 DOOKIE'S CABIN Greene Indian artifacts and self built cabin H Needs Permission MT. VERNON METHODIST CHURCH Greene Rt 646 An early 20th Century church with stained glass windows commemorating significant members of the church. D Needs Permission BUCKNER SCHOOL Louisa Built in 1913 as an African-American-graded school, where all students were taught in the same room. It was one of many built in that decade. M,I Needs Permission YANCEYVILLE'MILL Louisa Operated continuously since it was first built. It began in 1774 when Thomas Johnson, Jr. asked to build a dam across the South Anna to build a mill. Yanceyville was the first town in Loui sa. There was a store and a distillery. C Needs permission MADDOX STORE AT POINDEXTER Louisa A landmark and mailing address since 1838. Maddox Store (circa 1870) at Poindexter discontinued postal service in 1951. Private, not open, but may be viewed from the road where there is a historic marker. A,R Needs Permission MINERAL FIREMEN'S FAIR Louisa A rural community tradition, with parade, fireworks and a carnival. K Not able to pin down location. 68 BEAR CASTLE Louisa Was the birthplace of Dabney Cart in 1743. Married to the sister of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Carr represented Louisa in the House of Burgesses in 1772-73. He is credited with presenting the resolution, which was the first step in uniting the colonies prior to the Revolution. A Needs permission MITCHELL HOUSE Louisa "Braehead" was built Circa 1816 by Thomas Mitchell. A Needs Permission BOXELY HOUSE Louisa Pottiesville is located north of Buckner. It was once the home of the P6ttie family, an early Louisa merchant family. It was built about 1772. A Needs Permission SHELFARR STORE Louisa Established as a post office in' 1900 and closed in 1950. The name was a combination of Farrar and Shelton, prominent families from .the area. A,R Needs Permission PERRIN FARRER HOUSE Louisa ' Fan:ar Bank was built before 1785. The property was used as a muster ground during the War of 1812. The Yankees attempted to bum the house during the War between the States but little was damaged. A Needs Permission LOUISA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR Louisa A country fair dedicated to showcasing the efforts of the 4H and the FFA youth, including cattle, sheep, swine, canned goods, baked goods, handwork, and historical demonstrators of weaving, spinning , blacksmithing, and gun making. There are also food and craft vendors. etc. We have crafters and vendors, non-commercial food and lots of entertainment. Held mid August each year. K 69 Not able to pin down location. HOLLY GROVE. FESTIVAL Louisa A rural community festival held the last Week in April with amusements, Miss Holly Grove Pageant, crafts, parade, car show, auction and picnic. K Not able to pin down location. LOUISA FIREMEN'S FAIR Louisa A rural community tradition, with parade, fireworks and a carnival. K Not able to pin down location. SWIFT MILL Louisa A water gristmill. The original portion was built before 1742. The mill belonged to the Swift family for over I 00 years and it operated continuously for over 200 years, ending service in the 1960's. C Needs PermissiOn' BLUE RIDGE. RAILROAD HIKING, BIKING AND HORSEBACK RIDING TRAIL Nelson Hiking, biking and horseback riding trail. L Under development, Not ready yet 70 APPENDIX J List Of "Ancillary" Sites For Support Of Heritage Tourism. ?] ANCILLARY SITES HEAVENLY ACRES CAMPGROUND Greene Rt 230 LEWIS MOUNTAIN CAMPGROUND Greene Skyline Drive Facilities include cabins, campground with tent and trailer sites, camp store, picmc grounds, and campfire program. FORK UNION MOTOR LODGE Fluvanna 434-842-3624 SKY VIEW MOTEL Fluvann,a Rt 15, Fork Union 434-842-3255 COOPER'S VINEYARDS Louisa 13372 Shannon Hill Road, Louisa VA 23093 One of Virginia's oldest wineries, this eight- acre .vineyard is all grown on a divided trellis and is on a ridge site. Picnic area: 540-894-5253 CRABTREE FALLS CAMPGROUND Nelson On the Tye River Near Crabtree Falls Options for tents, RV, or cabin camping. 540-337-2066 MONTEBELLO CAMPGROUND Nelson Three miles east of the Blue Ridge Parkway Fishing on 4 acre lake and smaller lake stocked with trout; tent,'RV, and cabin camping. 540-377-2650 LAKE NELSON CAMPGROUND Nelson Off Hwy 29 south, east of Lovingston 65 sites on 15 acres with'stocked lake; RVs or tents permitted. 434-263-8966 72 Albemarle County Potential Heritage S tes I /? Potential Heritage Site Theme / Scenic Drive Road River Scottsville Town Boundary DRAFT Fluvanna County Potential Heritage Sites / ? Carf~o_o. ~r[ormir~ Arts Center Hardware River Wildlife Mgmt Area // ~ Dun~ School Union Military Academy CoJUmDla Heritage Site Boat Launch Scenic Route Road Stream C ':y reene oun Heritage Tourism Site ~Sconic Drive Shenandoah National Park DRAFT1 Louisa County Potential Heritage Sites ? N Heritage Site Jack Jouett's Ride Scenic Drives Road Railroad River Green Springs Historic District Nelson County Potential Herita Sites Blue Ridge Parkway Visitors Wintergreen Resor Fork Mountain Overlook /inyards GW The Apple ik Ridg~ New quarry / Potential Heritage Site /?~ Bicycle Tourism Route ~ Blue Ridge Parkway Overlooks /%.¢/Nelson scenic drives utm.st' Blue Ridge Ra~Trail (~002) Appalachian Trail Railroad Road River ORDINANCE NO. 02-7(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 7-204. Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. The responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs required by this article shall be as follows: A. The county engineer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each public street or private road which serves or is designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures which is not approved as a part of a subdivision or site plan; and Each road funded by the county or the Virginia Department of Transportation; 3. Each existing road serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two (2) addressable structures, but only at such time when the road serves three (3) addressable structures; provided that if a subdivision or site plan is approved which would be served by the road, then the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for such placement, as provided in paragraph (B)(1). B. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each road approved as part of a subdivision plat or site plan; 2. Each existing road in an existing subdivision or development which is bonded for future acceptance into the secondary system of state highways; and 3. Each existing road for which the placement of signs becomes the responsibility of the subdivider or developer, as provided in paragraph (A)(3). C. The subdivider or developer shall maintain signs it is required to place until such time as the roads are taken into the secondary system of state highways, or are taken over for maintenance by the homeowners as required pursuant to a private road maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the signs shall be maintained by the county except where a special installation has been allowed under part III, section 2(d) of the manual developed and adopted pursuant to section 7-202. (§§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5, 7-8-92; 10-13-93; Code 1988, §§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02- 7(1), 1-9-02) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2019. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Janua~. m .... CT~rl~TBOard of county Superv~,~s Aye Mr. Bowerman y Mr. Dorrier ~ Mr. Martin y Mr. Perkins y Mr. Rooker ~Y Ms. Thomas ¥ Nay 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Approve minor amendment to Section 7-204 ( c ) of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Davis, Weaver AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: × CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on December 5, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved minor changes to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual to incorporate efficiencies for administration. Coinciding with this approval, the Board set a public hearing date for amending the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance to incorporate section numbering changes approved for the Manual. DISCUSSION: In Section 7-204 (c) of the County Code, we propose that "...has been allowed under Part III, Section 3 (c) of the Manual..." be changed to read: "...has been allowed under Part Iii, Section 2 (d) of the Manual...". This change corrects a misidentification in the ordinance as to the pertinent section of the Manual. It also will reflect the renumbering of this section in the revised Manual. RECOMMENDATION: Approve rewording of the Albemarle County ROad Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance as proposed. changes will be included in the revised ordinance previously authorized for advertisement. These 01.236 Draft: 11-20-01 ORDINANCE NO. 02-7( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 7-204. Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. The responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs required by this article shall be as follows: A. The county engineer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locatiOns deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each public street or private road which serves or is designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures which is not approved as a part of a subdivision or site plan; Each road funded by the county or the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 3. Each existing road serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two (2) addressable structures, but only at such time when the road serves three (3) addressable structures; provided that if a subdivision or site plan is approved which would be served by the road, then the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for such placement, as provided in paragraph (B)(1). B. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each road approved as part of a subdivision plat or site plan; 2. Each existing road in an existing subdivision or development which is bonded for future acceptance into the secondary system of state highways; and 3. Each existing road for which the placement of signs becomes the responsibility of the subdivider or developer, as provided in paragraph (A)(3). C. The subdivider or developer shall maintain signs it is required to place until such time as the roads are taken into the secondary system of state highways, or are taken over for maintenance by the homeowners as required pursuant to a private road maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the signs shall be maintained by the county except where a special installation has been allowed under part III, section ~ r~x 2(d) of the manual developed and adopted pursuant to section 7-202. (§§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5,-7-8-92; 10q3-93; Code 1988, §§ 16.01-1, 16.01-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02- 7(1), 1-9-02) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2019, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY02 Budget Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY02 Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,299,211.10 and requested approval for the amendment and Appropriations #2001036, 2001038, 2001039, 2001040, 2001041, 2001042, 2001043, 2001044, and 2001049 for various school and local government projects. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: January 9, 2002 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia {}15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must amend its current budget if additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget of $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e, Capital, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or County's adopted operating budget. DISCUSSION: This proposed FY02 Budget Amendment totals $1,299,211.10. amendment of the expenses and revenues in the funds. The chart below breaks out the estimated ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund School Fund Education Programs/Projects Emergency Communications Center Capital Improvement Fund Debt Service Fund TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES -All Funds $ 59,284.00 27,175.29 781,501.81 198,500.00 220,000.00 12,750.00 $1,299,211.10 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Fund Balances TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES- All Funds $ 29,772.60 532,454.81 137,603.49 599,380.20 $1,299,211.10 12-26-0:J ?12:10 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY02 Budget Amendment Janua~ 9,2002 Page 2 This budget amendment consists of thirteen appropriations. The Board approved Appropriation #2001032, 2001034, 2001035 on December 5 and Appropriation #2001044 on December 12. These appropriations are included in this budget amendment as required by statute. The remaining nine appropriations will need approva subsequent to the public hearing. A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests approval of the FY02 Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,299,211.10 and approval of Appropriations #2001036, 2001038, 2001039, 2001040, 2001041, 2001042, 2001043, 2001044 and 2001049, as detailed on the attached appropriation forms. 01.238 Attachment A APPROPRIATION #2001036 $ 2,271.00 This is a Department of Environmental Quality grant for localities and cooperative programs that had fulfilled their FY 2001 grant obligations and had been awarded FY 2002 Litter Prevention and Recycling grants. This grant funds litter prevention and recycling activities at the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. The operations for this program are funded with a $2,271 State Department of Environmental Quality grant. There is no local match. APPROPRIATION #2001038 $280.00 Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $280.00 from Beth and Michael Samples. This donation will be used for the gifted program at the school. APPROPRIATION #2001039 $2,000.00 Traffic activity continues to increase in the County of Albemarle. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this problem and has funded grants using federal pass through monies to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. The grant period extends from October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. The operations for this program are funded with a $2,000 federal grant. There is no local match. APPROPRIATION #2001040 $10,000.00 The existing SMART sign is over 7 years old. It has been vandalized several times and only works for a day or so before the batteries go dead and it needs to be taken in for service. The objectives of this grant are to: · Supplement and eventually replace the existing SMART sign. · Deploy the SMART sign for longer periods. · Plan and implement remedial action for the road sections in which the existing SMART sign is deployed. · Document the SMART sign's use, traffic results, interventions, and results. The operations for this program are funded with a $10,000 federal grant. Thera is no local match. APPROPRIATION #2001041 $12,750.00 SunTrust Bank currently serves at the County's paying agent for its bonds issued through the Virginia Public School Authority. The County remit~ its ciebt service payments to SunTrust, as its paying agent, and they remit the funds to the bondholders. For SunTrust's services, the County incurs annual paying agent fees on each issue. These fees, estimated at $4,250.00, were not included in the~original appropriation ordinance. The County participated in the Virginia Public School Authority's Fall 2001 bond issue. The original appropriation ordinance did not include professional service fees the County would incur during this process. These fees relate to the services provided to the County by its bond counsel during this issue. APPROPRIATION #2001042 $198,500.00 During the last several months, the public safety/emergency services radio system has experienced an increase in radio interference with outside jurisdictions that prevent field units from being able to properly transmit and receive radio communications. This disruption has made it necessary to upgrade the EMS radio system at a cost of $23,500. This upgrade should reduce the interference and disruption of communications. Based on current cash balances and budget projections, the Emergency Communications Center has approximately $223,000 in unallocated funds. The ECC Manager has requested that a substantial portion of this amount ($175,000) be appropriated to a contingency allowing the Management Board more flexibility in dealing with current needs, especially as related to acquisition of the 800Mhz radio. APPROPRIATION #2001043 $659,943.70 Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $322.00 from Robert and Alicia MacWright. This donation will be used for the gifted program at the school. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,339.88 from the Meriwether Lewis PTO. This donation will be used to pay for books for the library. Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. This donation will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school. The Frederick S Upton Foundation made an additional award of $1,000.00 to Henley Middle School in support of Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program. This project funds three artists-in-residency programs with hands on learning experiences for students in performing, visual, and musical arts. Stony Point Elementary School has been selected by the University of Virginia to receive funding in the amount of $2'~,625.00 for Project BUILD (Bridges of Understanding to Inclusive Literacy Development Program). This project will help identify patterns in thinking, communication and actions that will im prove teaching and learning and identify contexts wherein these efforts can be created and sustained over time. The Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) provides counseling, academic and occupational services to address a growing population of students at risk of dropping out of school. Albemarle County Schools received $24,609.00 from the State for FY01/02. The funds wil be used for consultants, software support, printing, educational materials and equipment. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 provides funding to local school divisions for operating substance abuse programs to students. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $5,111.82 from FY00/01. In addition, funding for FY01/02 was increased by $2,141.00 from the original amount of $42,195.00. These grant funds will be used to pay for professional services. The Project Return II Grant has a fund balance of $1,442.26 from FY00/01. It is requested that the fund balance be re- appropriated for FY01/02. In addition, State funding for Project Return II increased by $1,067.00 from the original budget amount of $47,501.00. These funds will be used to pay for teacher salaries. The Alcoa Grant has a fund balance of $23,731.88 from FY00/01. It is requested that the fund balance be re-appropriated for FY01/02 The funds will be used to purchase instructional materials. The Standards of Learning Training Initiative Program received $123,150.00 from the State for FY01/02. There is a fund balance of $131,757.86 from FY00/01 SOL Training Initiative funds wil be used to support the following activities: graduate level courses for staff to support the division literacy recommendations; stipends for teacher training to support professional development efforts in the SOL's; consultant services in support of SOL training efforts; and educational materials in support of th e SOL.training. The Reading Excellence ACT (REA) Grant Program is focused upon training teachers at Yancey Elementary School to provide reading instruction that develops systematic phonetic decoding and comprehension skills and learn to diagnose reading problems and apply specific early reading intervention. There is a fund balance of $200,000.00 from FY00/01 It is requested that the fund balance be re-appropriated for FY01/02. The fun ds will be used to pay for salaries, staff development, educational materials and equipment. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Revenues were received in the amount of $1,554.72 from Farmington Country Club and $1,000.00 from students in tuition fees for English as a Second Language class. There is also a fund balance of $4,716.20 from FY00/01. The funds will be used to pay teacher salaries. The pnmary goal of the English Literacy/Civics Grant is to offer a series of classes designed for adult ESOL students to study, understand and work with essential elements of the American community; and to produce six stand-alone, multi-media presentations. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $56,683.08 from FY00/01. It is requested that the fund balance be appropriated for FY01/02. The funds will be used to pay salaries, consultants, educational materials and building rental. The Virginia Department of Education has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a Technology Literacy Challenge Grant in the amount of $57,692.00. This award represents the fifth winning proposal submitted to the Department of Education in as many years. The project specified in this grant is a continuation of the TSlP Teams Project, which received funding in 2000. The award will allow Albemarle County teachers who participated in the TSlP Teams Project to continue the development of materials to be used in a series of one-credit graduate courses to be offered through the University of Virginia's School of Continuing and Professional Studies. APPROPRIATION #2001044 $ 8,510.00 At its December 12, 2001 meeting, the Board approved Human Resources' request for an additional $8,510 to fund a new Human Resources Manager position for the remainder of FY02. This is the general government's share of this position cost and is funded from the Board's approved contingency fund. APPROPRIATION #2001049 $220,000.00 The Circuit Court Clerk's Office recently issued an RFP for a land records management system. Cott Systems was selected to install this system at a cost of $220,000.00 This system will employ imaging technology and will deal with all areas of the Clerk's office, including recording, receipting, indexing and accessing images, both on site and from remote locations. This system will allow the users to search indices and view the resulting images. Imaging of other documents filed with the Clerk's Office, including Uniform Commercial Code filings, wills, and marriage licenses, will also be included in this system. Records dealing with real property transactions, found in the Clerk's office, date back to 1748. These records are in hardbound books for the period of 1748 through December 1979 and on 16mm-roll microfilm from January 1980 to the present day. The current indexing system allows a user to search by several key items, including grantor/grantee name. To view the actual document, the user has to access it via the hardbound book or microfilm. Several years ago, the State established a Technology Trust Fund that is funded by an additional recordation fee placed on all documents recorded in each localities' Clerk's Office. This fund was established to assist with the modernization of land records in the Clerk's Offices across the Commonwealth. Annual estimated revenues provided by filings in the Albemarle Circuit Court Clerk's Office is $54,000. Request for funds from the Trust Fund can only be made in August of each year. As of June 30, 2001, Albemarle's current available balance in the State Technology Trust Fund is $180,768.00. The balance of this project, $39,232.00, will be funded from the Capital Improvement Fund Balance in anticipation of receiving reimbursement from the Technology Trust Fund in August 2002. It is currently anticipated that the on-going operating costs associated with this new imaging system will be approximately the same as the indexing system now in place. There may, however, be an overlapping of the two systems during the installation period that may require an additional appropriation for these costs at a later date. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR LITTER PREVENTION GRANT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GRANT 2001036 AMOUNT I 1400 42040 390004 RECYCLING $ 2,271.00 TOTAL $ 2,271.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1400 24000 240050 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY $ 2,271.00 TOTAL $ 2,271.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE NOV. 30, 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND:' PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO SCHOOL X 2001038 AMOUNT 1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $ 280.00 TOTAL $ 280.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109Donation $ 280.00 TOTAL $ 280.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC 4, 2001 /-/~-- ~- ~ ::2 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001039 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Operation Safe Holidays Grant EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1535 31013 120000'RECYCLING $ 1,858.00 1 1535 31013 210000 FICA 142.00 TOTAL $ 2,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1535 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $ 2,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC 4. 2001 /-,~- ~ ~ ~. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for SMART Sign Usage Grant X EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2001040 I 1534 31013 800100'EQUIPMENT $ 10,000.00 TOTAL $ 10,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1534 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $ 10,000.00 TOTAL $ 10,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 4, 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001041 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR BOND ISSURANCE AND BOND PAYMENT FEES. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9900 68000 310000 PROF. SERVICES $ 8,500.00 1 9900 68000 312810 BOND PAYING AGENT FEES 4,250.00 TOTAL $ 12,750.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9900 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F $ 12,750.00 TOTAL $ 12,750.00 TRANSFERS 1 1000 93010 930011 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE 12,750.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BUDGET CONTINGENCY (12,750.00) REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 6,2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCALYEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001042 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: EMERGENCY COMM. CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR UPGRADE TO EMS RADIO SYSTEM AND ALLOCATION TO CONTINGENCY PER ECC MANAGEMENT BOARD REQUEST. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 4100 31041 331601 RADIO EQUIPMENT $ 20,755.40 1 4100 31041 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 2,744.60 I 4100 31041 999999 CONTINGENCY 175,000.00 TOTAL $ 198,500.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 4100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $ 198,500.00 TOTAL $ 198,500.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: E.C.C. APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OFFINANCE BOARD OFSUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC. 11,2001 /-/,~ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01102 NUMBER 2001043 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS, GRANTS AND PROGRAMS. CODE 1 2304 61104 601300 1 2206 61101 601200 1 2302 61411 580000 1 3104 60252 312500 1 3148 61311 131400 160300 152100 210000 1 3142 60410 312700 601300 601700 800100 1 3107 60000 312700 1 3122 63349 112100 210000 1 3137 61101 601300 1 3139 60607 152100 210000 312500 550100 580100 580500 601300 I 3213 61101 112100 210000 221000 231000 232000 241000 312000 580000 580500 601300 800100 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************* *********************************** Inst/Rec Supplies $ 322.00 Books/Subscriptions 1,339.88 Misc. Expenses 1,000.00 Prof. Svc. Inst. 1,000.00 PT Wages-Other 5,770.00 Stipends-Staff/Curr 7,795.69 S u b -Wag es-Teach e r 6,405.00 FICA 1,654.31 Prof. Svc. Inst. 22,327.00 I nst/Rec Supplies 400.00 Printing 600.00 Mach/Equipment 1,282.00 Prof. Svc. Inst. 7,252.82 Wages-Teacher 2,330.94 FICA 178.32 Inst/Rec Supplies 23,731.88 Sub-Wages-Teacher 35,000.00 FICA 2,677.50 Consultants 75,000.00 Routine Mileage 10,000.00 Dues/Membership 6,000.00 Staff Dev 100,000.00 Inst/Rec Supplies 26,230.36 Wages-Teacher 90,000.00 FICA 6,885.00 VRS 9,783.00 Health Ins 6,450.00 Dental In 240.00 VRS-Grou p Life 720.00 Other Prof Svcs 7,600.00 Misc. Expenses 2,000.00 Staff Dev 28,000.00 Inst/Rec Supplies 27,322.00 Mach/Equipment 21,000.00 1 3116 63348 1 3147 63330 1 3131 61311 132100 PT Wages-Other 210000 FICA 111400 Salaries-Other Manag. 132100 PT Wages-Other 21OOOO FICA 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildings 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 312500 Prof. Svc. Inst. 580000 Misc. Expenses 800700 ADP Equip-Addl Teacher Teacher 6,754.22 516.70 2,823.00 42 665.65 3 479.88 6 600.00 I 114.55 31 721.00 22 500.00 3 471.00 TOTAL $ 659,943.70 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109Donation $ 2,661.88 2 3104 18000 181221 UptonAward 1,000.00 2 3148 18000 181260 Project BUILD 21,625.00 2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEPGrant 24~609.00 2 3107 24000 240233 Grant Rev-State 7,252.82 2 3122 24000 240500 Grant Rev 1,067.00 2 3122 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Bal 1,442.26 2 3137 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Bal 23,731.88 2 3139 24000 240354 Rev-Tuition 123,150.00 2 3139 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Bal 131,757.86 2 3213 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Bal 200,000.00 2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 2,554.72 2 3116 51000 510100Approp. FundBal 4,716.20 2 3147 33000 330113 CategAid-Federal 56,683.08 2 3131 24000 240312 Tech Challenge Grant 57,692.00 TOTAL $ 659,943.70 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC. 17, 2001 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 20O 1044 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 2002 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2420 62140 111400 SALARIES $ 29,676.00 210000 FICA 2,270.00 221000 VRS 3,226.00 231000 HEALTH INS. 1,530.00 232000 DENTAL INS. 60.00 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE 238.00 1 2410 60100 999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE (28,490.00) TOTAL $ 8,510.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 19000 190250 RECOVERED COST-PERSONNEL SERVICES $ 8,510.00 TOTAL $ 8,510.00 TRANSFERS I 1000 12030 930002 TRANSFER FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES 8,510.00 I 1000 95000 999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY (8,510.00) REQUESTING COST CENTER: HUMAN RESOURCES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE / / APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW 2001049 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO FUND: C.I.P.-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR LAND RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 9010 21060 800708 DOCUMENT IMAGING SYSTEM $ 220,000.00 TOTAL $ 220,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 24000 240800 STATE TECHNOLOGYTRUSTFUND $ 180,768.00 2 9010 51000 510100C.I.P. FUND BALANCE 39,232.00 TOTAL $ 220,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE / / David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier. ,Jr. Scot~ville Charles S. Martin COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (4341 296-5800 Janua~ 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hail Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Michael and Beth Samples 103 Hillview Drive Charleston, WV 25314-1028 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Samples: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation to Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These ftmds will be used to hdp enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, Sallv H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr~ Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 January 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker ,Jack 'jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Robert and Alicia MacWright 3010 Cove Lane Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. and Mrs. MacWright: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation to Monticdlo High School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, Sallv H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Sco~ville Charles S. Martin l~vanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 January 14, 2002 Waiter F.. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Meriwether Lewis PTO 1610 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 J~uuary 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack douefl Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Stephen Upton 100 Ridgeway St. Joseph, MI 49085 Dear Mr. Upton: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donations to Western Albemarle High School and Henley Middle School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to hdp enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, SHT/ewc Sallv H. Thomas Chairman CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE_: Windham Assisted Living Facility Proposal I AGENDA DATE.: January 9, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposal to invest County funds in maintaimng auxiliary grant assisted living beds at Windham and to move forward in developing an agreement with JABA (Jefferson EIderCare). STAFF CONTACT{S): Tucker, White BACKGROUND: ACTION: X _CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes Windham is an assisted living facility in Crozet, which was initially renovated by Jordan Development Company. The facility is currently owned by Genesis ElderCare National Centers, Inc., which is going out of business and has offered the facility for sale. The assessed value of the building and the land is $3.9 million. Stonehaus, Inc. currently has an option to purchase the building for $850,000. DISCUSSION: Stonehaus Development Corporation can eith er purchase the building with or without residents. They have approached the County and the City and the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) in an attempt to develop a viable solution to maintain the facility for assisted living residents. The option closes th e second week of January with an anticipated closing in March. After forwardSeveral lengthYto the BoardmeetingSof Supervisorsand discussiOnan ds'cityC°Untycouncil.and City staff, JABA and Stonehaus have agreed to bring the following plan Stonehaus would buy the property and commit to retaining the building as an assisted living facility for a period of ten years or at least as long as we would want it to continue. If the assisted living facility was not successful, Stonehaus would convert the property to rental housing for Iow/moderate income elderly; JABA, our community agency responsible for care and services for the elderly, has agreed to manage the facility. To make the project financially feasible, JABA will need to change the mix of residents from a majority of auxiliary bed residents to more private pay residents, as well as reduce the number of mentally ill residents current residing at Windham. The primary reason for Genesis' closing was allowing the number of auxiliary grant residents, including a large number of mentaNy ill residents from outside the area, to far outweigh the private pay residents, thereby reducing their net profit. State funding for the auxiliary beds does not fully offset the cost of care. Over the first 80 - 90 days, JABA recommends reducing the maximum capacity to 115 instead of 142 to elimin ate the triple rooms, which would mean relocating 27 individuals to other facilities aroune the state. Albemarle and Charlottesville residents would not be affected by the capacity reduction. The facility would offer a total of 33 private rooms and 44 double rooms. The County and City would continue to have 55 auxiliary beds (currently 25 city and 30 county), which would require a subsidy until the private pay residents began to offset the costs. JABA estimates the monthly cost per person is $1200; the state reimbursement rate for the auxiliary beds is $815. JABA believes there is a market for assisted living services at $1600 - $1700 per month and that Windham could attract private pay citizens if the mix is changed. (See attached sheet for statistical information and pros and cons associated with this plan). Budgetary Impact During a 39-month transition phase to more private pay residents, JABA would require the following subsidies from the County and the City: 01-03-02P04:0t RCVD AGENDA TITL E: Windham Assisted Living Facility Proposa January 9, 2002 Page 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Albemarle 80,885 63,224 33,508 177,617 Charlottesville 67,404 52,686 27,924 148,014 An anticipated VRS refund from the closed District Home could serve as a source of one-time revenues for Windham. It is anticipated that the City will receive $256,500 and the County will receive $238,000 in VRS reimbursement funds, which are due back to the localities with no restrictions, i.e. these funds could also be used for other general government needs. A January 10th District Home meeting has been called to discuss the fin al disbursement of any revenues realized from the sale of the District Home property, although it is anticipated that the localities who bore most of the management burden will recoup any net profits. The VRS reimbursement amounts have already been determined by locality and are not linked to the sale profits. Prior to its closing, the County funded the District Home operations at an annual subsidy of $30,000 - $40,000, which made up the difference between the actual operating costs and the state auxiliary grant. A one-time County investment of $177,617 to Windham nets out to a $17,600 annual subsidy over the 10-year perio~l. If the County and the City decided they needed to recoup the initial cash investment at some point during the ten-year period, they could by mutual agreement with JABA, further reduce the number of auxiliary beds and/or raise the private pay rate to increase the project's net cash flow. To return any excess cash flow to the localities would require reducing the auxiliary beds to 50 instead of 55 and raising the private pay by 7% a year. However, these numbers are highly speculative at this point without knowing the final interest rate, operating cost experience, state auxiliary grant increases, the market demand for affordable assisted living, etc. If the facility does not break even after the first three years and is forced to close, Stonehaus has stated that they would commit to maintaining the facility as rental housing for Iow to moderate income elderly. A second alternative proposed by Stonehaus would be to convert it to con dominiums or some other private venture. In that scenario, Stonehaus has stated they would return the County and City's initial investment without interest. Although auxiliary beds were previously subsidized at the District Home up until 1998, entering into a public/private partnership with JABA to assure assisted living beds for indigent County residents would be a new direction for the County. If this project succeeds, a $17,000 annual subsidy for 30 residents ($566/year) should be considered well spent and a successful investment in keeping Albemarle senior citizens in their community and out of nursing homes. However, with the possibility that this project might not succeed, there are a number of details that must be worked out in the initial agreement to assure that the County's investment will be returned. A detailed agreement will be developed by County, City and JABA staff and legal counsel in the next several weeks and brought back to the Board for final approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends support for the proposal to invest one-time County resources into maintaining Windham as an assisted living facility in Crozet and requests approval to proceed with developing a formal agreement with Jefferson ElderCare and/or Stonehaus Development. This agreement would be subject to the satisfactory resolution of all conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors and would be brought back to the Board for final approval in February. 01.243 Windham Assisted Living Facility Current statistics for Windham: N umber of licensed beds Current number of residents 142 Number of current private pay residents 23 Number of auxiliary grant residents Number of mentally ill residents 57 153 (93% occupancy) (16%) 119 (84%) (40%) (84% auxiliary pay) (16% private pay) The chart below breaks down the private pay and auxiliary residents by locality: Current residents home residence Private pay Bdedy Mentalyi~ Total Private Pay Clients Auxiliary Ct'ant Bdedy Mentally ill Total Auxiliary Grant Clients Total Clients Ch'ville Alben'~e OtherPD10 NotPD10 Totals 6 4 0 4 14 2 0 0 7 9 8 4 0 11 23 14 23 0 34 71 11 7 7 23 48 25 30 7 57 119 33 34 7 68 142 Note - that private pay residents within ChMIle & Albemarle represent 52% of total residents and 48% come from outside FO 10 Note- that Auxiliary grant residents within Ch'ville & Albemarle represent 46°/0 of total residents and 48% come from outside PD 10 Note - that total dients from Ch'ville & Albemarle represent 47% of total residents and 48% come from outside FO 10 Note - with an i~iate reduction of 20 AG from outside Ch'ville and Albemarle, then the current ratio of PP to AG is 1 PP to 4.35AG 'fhis represents the starting point of tmc~sition from current resident PP to AG rrix to optimum mi× Pros · Thirty Albemarle County residents and 25 City residents would be able to remain at Windham and not be placed outside the County · These assisted living slots would always be available to Albemarle and Charlottesville as the population continues to age. · If the facility is not'financially successful, the developers would maintain the facility for Iow-income rental housing for the elderly, thus maintaining the County's investment in elderly housing. · JABA is a recognized and responsible entity to manage the facility. · If the facility's net profit is not able to pay the County and City back their initial investment, the County and City can always decide to reduce the number of auxiliary beds and use the additional cash flow to pay back the local dollars · This would temporarily provide assisted living slots to the county and city while other options are pursued for the elderly, i.e. another facility, increased support from the state, lower interest rates, etc. Cons · Subsidizing the eldedy in need of assisted living has heretofore been a state responsibility, although the subsidy has never been enough to offset the costs of care. Therefore, across the state many of these facilities are closing. Taking on this responsibility may be a significant drain on the County and City's financial resources as the elderly population increases. If the County and City choose to subsidize this facility, there may be other private entities in financial difficulties also requesting a local subsidy. However, in this instance the facility is managed by a non-profit agency and there is also a mechanism for pay back The financial feasibility depends on changing the mix of residents and marketing the facility to private pay patients. This may happen and it may not, depending on the public perception of Windham and access to other facilities in the area. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12-26-01P1£: 19 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: COmprehensive Annual Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001. AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Koonce; Ms. White INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY~~ BACKGROUND: The 2000/2001 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. DISCUSSION: Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last six years and is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 of the Financial Section details the assets, liabilities and fund balances for the various funds as of June 30, 2001. Due to reporting requirements, a number of activities are combined differently than normally reported to you or as they are used on a daily basis. The attached schedule "A" is intended to reconcile the fund balances as shown in the annual report to those you are more accustomed to seeing. General Fund The adjusted General Fund balance of $18,956,188 reflects a decrease compared to June 30, 2000 of $1,543,892, resulting mainly from an eighteen percent (18%) increase in transfers. This increase in transfers reflects the new carry-over policy adopted by the Board in October that transfers year-end balances to the Capital Improvement Reserves. This year-end balance is $479,000, greater than the preliminary balance previously reported to you due to federal revenues, related to Social Services that the auditors determined should be accrued in FY 2000/2001. This amount will also increase the FY2001/2002 beginning fund balance as shown on the October quarterly financial report and will be reflected in future quarterly financial reports for FY 2001/2002. School Fund Based on Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) required format, all school-related activities are combined in the annual report. The fund balance at June 30, 2001 of $165,527,458, shown in the report, is inclusive of all fixed assets, inventories, and actual balances in all school-related activities. As shown on Attachment "A", the adjusted School Fund balance of $805,866 reflects a decrease of $806,796 compared to June 30, 2000 resulting from the use of fund balance to support FY 2000/2001 operations. The use of fund balance for FY2001/2002 has further reduced the available fund balance to $209,366. AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report January 9, 2001 Page 2 Capital Funds The June 30, 2001 balances for both the General and School Capital Funds have been reappropriated for current projects or allocated for future projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 2000/2001 annual financial report, which may best be understood by reviewing the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 - 52 of the Financial Section. The Audit Committee will be meeting on January 4, 2002 to review the audit and may, therefore, have additional comments on the year end financial report at the' meeting. 01.240 .Attachment "A" Fund Balances General Fund ,Capital - General School Fund Capital - Per Audit School 06/30/2001 $20,330,841 $ 10,659,633 $ 165,527,458 $ 0 Fixed Assets (158,141,969) Debt Service (1,775,992) Fire Billing Fund (10,239) Capital Projects (1,296,811 ) 1,296,811 Fire Service (2,000,000) Fund Cafeteria Fund (1,017,695) Storm Water (1,117,947) Fund . Combined Funds (1,449,503) Inventory (50,236) (253,634) Sales Tax (811,678) (702,414) Reserve Prep Advance (83,574) Reserves - (500,000) VDOT Reserves - Waldorf (2,500) Adjusted $18,956,188 $ 7,541,686 $ 805,866 $ 1,296,811 Balance Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 can be found in the 2002 Financial Matters folder. January 9, 2002 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711 (A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND ·UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER REQUIRING THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE IVY LANDFILL AND A LEGAL MATTER REQUIRING THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO A HIGHWAY PROJECT. Ella CareY From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: [ Laurie Bentley Wednesday, Janua~j 09, 2002 10:37 AM Bob Tucker;, Charles Martin; Charlotte Humphris; DBowrman; Lindsay Dorder; Sally Thomas; Walter Perkins Laude Bentley; Ella Carey Board committees Please note that I've added two committees to the list you received in your Board packet. This is the section that I updated (note that additions are in blue)-it is the section pertaining to committees Board members serve on. Thanks, In addition, the following chart shows committees whose members are not appointed by the Board:. BOARD OR COMMISSION - NOT APPOINTED BY BOS MEMBER HIGH GROWTH COALITION VACO FINANCE COMImi~ lEE Sally Thomas Sally Thomas VACO AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEERIN(~ I COMM~i lEE Walter Perkins COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Charles Martin COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C~r-~ Senior Deputy Clerk ~ January 4, 2001 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through April 30, 2002, and have attached pending applications previously sent to you. No other applications are attached, as the deadline for current advertised vacancies is January 23. (I have already sent applications received for Jack Jouett magisterial district appointments to Mr. Rooker.) Please note that, at your request, I have set up two interviews for January 9. Thankyou. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce (list only) Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 300 East Main Street, 1 st Floor Mall Entrance PO Box 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 (434) 979-PD10 (7310) o:o FAX (434) 979-1597 City of Charlottesville Kevin Lynch Nancy Damon Albemarle County Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Flnvanna County Thomas E. Payne Len Gardner Greene County Steve Catalano Philip Arms Louisa County Fitzgerald A. Barnes dane H. Poore Nelson County Harry S. Harris, Chair Fred Boger Executive Director Nancy K. O'Brien December 20, 2001 Mr. Robert Tucker County Executive Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Tucker: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is developing a Rural ~' Transportation Plan for 2025 and is forming a citizen advisOry committee to assist in the process. I am writing to request that Albemarle County appoint a citizen:representative to. serve on the 'committee~. The appointment should last for approximatelyone anda half years, as-the plan.is expected to be complete bySpring ~2003. The committee will meet-once~'monrhly:to.discuss~theRUral: Transportation Pifih:?O~ 20:~jii.~ i:~f~:'proper coordination of plans~ the committee will ~e~t"quartCdg,~ With the CHART cOxmnittee to discuss progress on the urban area plan for 2025. Enclosed is a committee description and timeline for the rural plan development. Please contact Chris Gensic at 434-979-7310 if you have any questions or need assistance. E-Maii:.i/tjPd¢~jPdc:.org'*~Web Site: www. tjpdc,org Virginia Relay USersi 7t I (TDD) Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 300 East Main Street, 1st Floor Mall Entrance PO Box 1505, Charlottesville VA 22902-1505 (434) 979-PD10 (7310) + FAX (434) 979-1597 City of Charlottesville Kevin Lynch Nan~ Damon Albemarle County Waker F. Perkins Sal~ H, Thomas Fluvanna County Thomas E. Pasne Len Gardner Greene County Steve Camlano Philip Arms Louisa County Fitzgerald A. Barnes Jane H. Poore Nelson County Harry S. Harris, Chair Fred Boger Executive Director Nano K. O'B~gen Thomas Jefferson Rural Transportation Plan Year 2025 Proposed Citizen Advisory Committee Updated December 20, 2001 Committee Structure: .... The committee will include an at-large citizen representative appointed by each locality in the Planning District (including the City of Charlottesville for coordination) and six' members appointed by the TJPDC to represent various transportation planning considerations, including: mass transit bicycle and pedestrian economic development freight elderly and disabled environmental concerns At least one member will have joint membership on the MPO CHART Citizen Advisory Committee. Meetings: The RTP2025 Citizen Advisory Committee will meet monthly during development of the plan, and will meet periodically with the MPO CHART Citizen Advisory Committee to share information. Process: The committee will make recommendations to the Rural Transportation Technical Committee, which will in turn present recommendations to the TJPDC. The Plan will reflect the needs and concerns of each locality, brought together to address a regional vision and goals. The Rural Transportation Plan Year 2025 process will be coordinated with the CHART 2025 process in such a manner that, when both plans are complete, the TJPDC can combine the two plans into a Jefferson Area Regional Transportation Plan Year 2025. The Public Involvement Plan for the Rural Transportation Plan will include a variety of means by which the public can provide ideas and comments to the Citizen Advisory Committee and the TJPDC on transportation issues and plan recommendations. Q:\Transp~rtati~nLRura~TransP~an2~25\CitizenAdvis~ryC~mmittee~RTP2~25-CAC-Descripti~n.d~ E-Maih tjpd@tj.pdc.org + Web Site: www.tjpdc.org Virginia Relay Users: 7.11 (TDD) Thomas Jefferson Rural Transportation Plan for 2025 Development Process Expected Date Starting November 2001 December 2001-February 2002 December 18, 1:30 December 2001-February 2002 January-March 2002 February 2002 March/April 2002 April-December 2002 January 22, 1:30 December 2001 - February 2002 February 26, 1:30 February 2002 March 26, 1:30 March-July 2002 April 23, 1:30 May 28, 1:30 Plan Development PDC sets aside part of each PDC meeting to act as the Policy Committee for rural transportation planning ' PDC appoints a Rural Area Citizen's Advisory Committee with at least one joint member with the CHART Committee Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (held every 4th Tuesday at the TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Review existing comprehensive plans for transportation and land use goals for review at the EPI Regional Summit Develop a public involvement plan that includes a series of community meetings and activities such as surveys to solicit comments throughout the planning process PDC and Rural Transportation Technical Committee (?) members participate with other local officials and planning commissioners in the EPI Regional Summit, and form a task force of decision makers to achieve the EPI Key Success Factors. This provides a rural land use planning context for developing the transportation plans Using the RATS 2015 as a base, formulate a regional vision, goals, and evaluation criteria for the Thomas Jefferson Regional Transportation Plan, reaching agreement between the PDC and MPO Implement public involvement plan; hold meetings and conduct other activities identified in the plan Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Using the CorPlan computer model, build a scenario based on existing comprehensive ~lans Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Show the scenar/o at the EPI summit Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting iTJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) With VDOT, identify transportation implications of existing comprehensive plans based on the CorPlan scenario Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Q:\Transpollafion\RuralTransPlan2025~2025 Planning Outline table, doc June 25, 1:30 July-October 2002 July-October 2002, based on data developed during January-June 2002 July 23, 1:30 August 27, 1:30 September 24, 1:30 'November/December 2002 January/February 2003 February/April 2003 May/June 2003 Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Using the results of the modeling process, develop and evaluate a series of multi-modal transportation and/or land use recommendations Use the EPA Smart Growth index to fine-tune transportation and land use goals for designated development areas (snapshot mode) and to identify appropriate phasing of transportation investments to achieve rural land use goals (forecast mode) Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) ¥ Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting 'TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Rural Transportation Technical Committee meeting (TJPDC in Downtown Charlottesville) Present draft rural plan to TJPDC MPO presents CHART plan to TJPDC TJPDC and MPO develop regional 2025 plan Regional plan presented to localities Q:\Transpo~lation\RuralTransPlan2025~2025 Planning Outline table, doe BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE- DIST~JCT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT · 1 application (Perkins) sent on 2/2/01. Readvertised; rec'd no additional applications. Daniel Montgomery 12/13/00 12/13/02 No Advertised; applications sent to Mr. Rooker. James R. Skove (Replacement to complete 1/19/03 Resigned Jack Jouett Albert O. Humbertson, Jr. 12/31/01 12/31/02 Lade 12t31/01 1 2/31/01 12/31/01 12/31/02 Resined Yes White Hall Jack Jouett Samuel Miller Rivanna 9t28/01. 2 applications (Gensic and LaSauce) sent on 11t2/01. 2 interviews set up for 119102-- Nielsen at6:00 and LaSauce at 6:10. Jeff Bialy (Joint City/County appointee) 12/31/01 Resigned Dennis Rooker (current PC 7/8/02 1 slot on new committee (see attached letter from (2 years from appointment TERM EXPIRES REm Advertised; applications due 1/23/02. Advertised; is due 1/23/02, Frances Lee-Vandell 12/31/01 12/31/01 12/31/04 ineligible Advertised; applications sent to Mr. Rooker, Dennis S. Rooker Elizabeth D. Mclvor 12/3t/05 Jack Jouett Jack Jouett Advertised; applications due 1/23102. 3 new slots Not set Robert R, Humphds J. Randolph Parker Donald J, 4116/02 4/16/02 ~16~2 4116/06 4/16/06 4/16/06 Jack Jouett Ye8 Samuel Miller Rio ~resentative) N/A 4/3/03 County of Albemaxle Office of Board of Coumy Sup=visors 401 Mel,',tire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMrlWEE (Please type or print.) FullHomeAddress/~t:::30[~ 01tC.~01.a~ ~od~_. ~O. ~:3{-- a 2- ~. be-..e. IJ_m'ov,, , I/A, 2--~q 4'0 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer ~~ V Business Address Phone Occupation/Title 0 I.,O I/l~ V Years Resident in Albemarle County Date of Employment Spouse's Name Previous Residence Number of Children Education (Degrees arid Graduation, Membershivs in Fraternal. Business, Church and/or Social Groups Public, Civic and Charitable Office md/or Other Activities or Interest~ Reason(~ for Wishing to S .erve on this Board/Commission/Committee The inf ~o~a?~ott prodded on this app~catio, mill be rekased ?o thepubh~tpo'~ request. Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 MeIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 PLEASE RESTRICT ANY ATTACHMENTS TO ONE PAGE t0-15-01 P04:22 IN Diane LaSauce 1813 Old Orchard Road P.O. Box 32 Free Union, Virginia 22940-0032 434-964-0816 Home Keyword Proffie: Management. Marketing. Administration. Merchandise Buyer. Inventory control. Cash Control. Staff management. Copywr{ter. Editor. Product development. Museum retail management. Mall-order management. Web management. Mall-order catalogue design. Computerized order-entry. Merchandising. Licensing. Microsoft Office 98 and NT 2000. Outlook 2000. POS systems. BFA Interior Design--Virginia Commonwealth University. Summary: More than eighteen years experience in management, marketing and administration, supervisory management, inventory control, product development, web site management, licensing, catalogue design, copy writing, and mall order. Organized, accurate, and detail oriented. Ability to perform multiple tasks under deadlines. Work independently as well as within a team environment. Professional Experience Just Desserts-Cakes, Crepes and Morel April 2000-present Free Union, Virginia 22940 Owner and Cheil Small custom baking company specializing in heirloom cake recipes, both savory and sweet crepes, soups, New Mexico Cuisine, seasonal variety, chutneys, party planning, and catering. French Country Living, Inc. Catalogue Headquarters Sterling, Virginia October 1999-February 2000 Associate Merchant: Included all aspects of product selection, vendor relations, coordinating sample orders, resolving issues and administration within a catalogue environment. Relocated to Charlottesville in April of 2000. Folger Shakespeare Library July 1993 to October 1999 201 East Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003-1094 Museum Store Manager: Successfully administered business plans, budgets, and maintained budgetary control. Supervised sales staff: screen, interview, select, directed training, scheduled, and conducted mid-vear and annual performance evaluations. Formulated training manuals. Accountable for store inventory and assets: including cash and equipment. Produced daily accounting reports. Managed monthly Excel spreadsheets. Forecasted merchandising and marketing trends. Developed budget and marketing strategies. Reported programs' £mancial accomplishments to administration. Managed retail sales, mail order, and web site operations. Produced annual store catalogue and marketing mail. Created and maintained a web site (www.shakespeare-etc.org) promoting the shop's 100 most popular products. Supervised fulfillment. Product Development: Researched the Folger collection; conferred with curators and conservationists. Designed products, selected vendors, negotiated licensing agreements, and supervised all stages of development. Produced provenance information, and augmented marketing strategies in both the United States and abroad. Coordinated merchandise with the institution's collection, current exhibitions, programs, and special events. Created licensed and custom textiles, jewelry, paper, and gifts for home and garden. Licensed and custom products produced significant revenue. Buyer: Selected and purchased books, textiles, paper, food, recordings, ceramics, glass, jewelry, gifts and seasonal merchandise for retail, web site, and mail order operations. Maintained product levels using POS system. Average SKU is six hundred. Maintained monthly and annual MS Excel spreadsheets that reflected shop's performance. Determined price strategies. Attended buyer markets. Designed store merchandise displays. Cultivated and maintained two hundred healthy vendor relationships. ~ Diane LaSauce Page Two Gunston Hall Plantation April 1992 to May 1993 Mason Neck Lorton, Virginia Museum Shop Manager: Conducted all aspects of daily sales transactions. Calculated and processed payroll. Managed accounts payable, accounts receivable, credit card processing, deposits, and monthly state sales tax forms. Maintained records and filing system. Drafted monthly chairperson report. Directed shops staff; conducted sales training, and set goals for the orientation of the museum shop. Supervised part-time and volunteer staff. Redesigned the shop's interior. Reorganized shop operation. Buyer: Purchased appropriate merchandise specific to the eighteenth century. Attended vendor markets, seminars, and meetings. Processed special orders, shipping, receiving, and damage control. Maintained valued vendor relationships and cultivated new sources. Established all pricing and markdowns. Gross sales increased by 20% percent and the shop's mission and museum related merchandise strengthened. Product Development: Designed licensed and custom jewelry, textiles, paper products, historical foods, provenance, and souvenir items. Diane LaSauce Consultations 1984-1991 Arlington, Virginia 22206 Independent consultant: Owned and operated a full service, detail oriented, residential interior design firm. Directed and managed all aspects of interior design projects. Coordinated with architects, construction and electrical contractors, manufacturers, installers, workrooms, and sound technicians to insure completion, client satisfaction, and contractual agreements. Handled all phases of projects' financial requirements, i.e., budget, purchasing, accounting and administration. Supervised up to thirty contractors at one time. Professional Achievements · Subject of feature article, "The Complete Designer," Fall issue, I988, my home magazine. · Listed in the 1988-1990 editions of Baron's Who's Who in Interior Design. · Award of Excellence-Graphics Communication Competition for Folger Museum Shop Catalogue 1998, 1999. Education · Bachelor of Fine Arts---Interior Design, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia Affiliations · Freelance columnist for In The Kitchen and Morel MonthI!~ publications · Virginia Master Gardener Community Service The Arlington Condominium Recycling Committee 1989-1995 Education Coordinator: Researched recycling, water conservation, and hazardous waste issues. Consulted with solid waste executives, provided interface between committee members, condominium management, staff, local county administrators, and legislators. Lobbied for local retail business recycling. Donated civic presentations, held press interviews, scribed environmental articles for newsletters and newspapers, and wrote recycling instructions for community use. The Arlington Condominium was the first multi-family residence in Arlington County to implement curbside recycling. This program was adopted by thousands of area residents. In 1995, the Arlington Condominium was awarded the Metropolitan Council of Governments Business Recycling Award. Since 1991, the Committee evolved into landscape issues and is renamed the Buildings and Grounds Committee. Buildings and Grounds Committee Chairman 1991-1995 Environmental and Energy Conservation Commission 1991-1993 Appointed by the Arlington County Board to review various environmental and energy conservation issues and make recommendations on legislation. The Arlington Animal Welfare League Volunteered for special events and fund raising projects. 1989-2000 County of Albemarle Office of Board o£ County Supervisors 401Mclnt~ Road Charlottesv~e, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLIGATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMlVffSSION/CO~EE --" (Pt~ase type or print.) Board/Commission/Co~e Applicant's Name 5coqrso([le Va- t.5. z,,~9~o Full Home Ad&ess Oc~padon/Tide ~<~ D~e O MembersNps N Fmrem~, B~Mess, Ch~ch md/or Soci~ Groups Pubic, CMc md Ch~table Office ~d/or ~her A~des or Ntere~s ~e ~fo~adon prodded o~s app~cadon ~ be rde~ed to ~e pub:c upon Si ~ C1 k~rdof Dare Re to: ~ Coun~ Sup~isors z~b~le Coun~ 4Cl Mcfntke Road County of Albemarle Office of Boant of Cmmty Supervisors 401 McIntixe Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) - ~.~ Home Phone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer Phone Business Add~ess Occupation/Title ~ff;/ ~~ ~-' Years Resident in Albemarle Cotmty ~~~/~ Spouse's Name Previous Residence ~/'~k~i~ ~'/~d~/,~.~'~A/~8~. ~ff/~" MembaershipsinFratemal,]3"'iness, Chttrchand/orSocialC-roupg /ff]~'~/[~- O/ Public, Civic and Charitable Of/rice and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason tsx forWishm to Se ~'' J ' /' ~.? ' ' g r~e on this Bo=a/Co~-,-i.,ion/Com~.ittee Ti~e information provided on this application ~ be released to the public upon request &gnamre Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 08-14-01 ^08:49 IN County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Applicant's Name d--~/dtlT/'l~,,/~k. T~- I3Y_.IZ~.54,3, Home Phone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~//~ ~3'E.14llld,_ Employer '~a}~oq'14 r'XV (~ Phone Business address O~/~_ '~S~ J]~_..~ ~Oi~,//-e~ 6ff, q~.14~7~SV"lLl~/ tIS 22~3 Years Resident in Albemarle County ~ ~/~q~---$ Previous Residence ~'Ltx~'tg:Ll~ Education (Degrees and GraduatiQn Dates) ~;~C&~/.~.~ 0/:: / ~e4~ r civil ~;d~4 - Iqq3 MembenNp~ in Fraternal. Bushess. Church and/or Sodfl Gr0up~ ~]~ ~ff~ / ~,~d Date of Employment Spouse's Name ~)O:/ /.../<. Number of Children 'Z.- c;v~L c,,/~;deee3,~4 -/qqz 5 ~b4- gz3. Izz,y ) Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(~) for \~glshing tO Serve on this Board/Commission/Comrmttcc The info~afion prodded on ~s~plicafion w~ be released to ~e pubic upon request. Si~amre Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 FAX: (8O4) 296-5800 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM :1'0: FROM: DATE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C~ Senior DepUty Clerk ./" January 4, 2002 RE: Membership on Boards and Commissions I have attached a list of the Boards and Commissions on which individual Board members serve (including those on which Ms. Humphris served). Please make appointments and/or reappointments as necessary at the January 9, 2002 meeting. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION - APPOINTED BY BOS MEMBER Walter Perkins DATE CURRENT TERM EXPIRES (if applicable) NEW TERM DATES (if applicable) Lindsay Dorrier Lindsay Dorrier Chades Martin Charlotte Humphris Charles Martin I David Bowerman ........ Charlotte Humphris 7/8/02 l 111102- I / 12/31/03 (cont, DATE ' BOARD OR COMMISSION - APPOINTED BY BOS (cont.) MEMBER CURRENT NEW TERM TERM DATES (if EXPIRES (if applicable) Charlotte Humphris 12/31/01 t/1102- 12/31/03 , , Charlotte Humphris Sally Thomas Sally Thomas 12/31/O1 1/t/02- , , 12/31t04 Walter Perkins " tt5/04 In addition, the following chart shows committees whose members are not appointed by the Board: BOARD OR COMMISSION - NOT APPOINTED BY BOS MEMBER Sally Thomas Sally Thomas David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr. ScoRsville Charles S, Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter E Perkins ~ite Hall Dennis S. Rocker Jack Joue~t Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Januaw 16,2002 Mr. William Edgerton 939 Barracks Farm Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. E~on: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 9, 2002, the Board appointed you as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Your term will run from January 1 2002 through December 31,2005. I have attached a roster for your convenience. The Planning Commission meets every Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County Office Building on Mclntire Road. Planning Commission members receive $4,100 a year as compensation for their services, therefore, W-4 slips will have to be filled out and provided to the Personnel Department. All future correspondence will be addressed to you directly from the Planning Department. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SliT/lab Enclosure CC: Wayne Cilimberg Kimberly Suyes James L. Camblos Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Com_ty Superdsca~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/CO~ (Please type or print.) Boaed/Co~ssion/Committee l~t-.~iql~l N,~i,' ~--~ ~st~al ~sMct M wM~ yo~ home resid~ce is l~ated ~ Occupation/Tide Years Resident in Albemarle County Date of Employment Spouse's Name L-.i Previous Residence l'~t~l..Tli~eqZ~- . /~t~l'&¥ ~D Number of Children Education (De~ees and Graduation Dates) Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Inter¢~ :.~,,1~1~ A.Y_I"~g~-O Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee '~1 The inf /ormtaffo~ded on this app&atio# mill berekasedtOthepublic ~po# request. t-z.l~,t4 t ~ t ~g~tu~e D~te ' ' ' Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 PI. EASE RESTRICT ANY ATTACHMENTS TO ONE PAGE "2-2~-01P03:39 RCVD David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Sco~sville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville~ Virginia 22902-4596 (4~4) 296-5843 FAX I434) 296-5800 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker · Jack ,louett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller January 15,2002 Mr. Scott Goodman 75 Roslyn Forest Ln. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Goodman: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 9, 2002, the Board appointed you to complete the balance of Mr. James R. Skove's term as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative on the Industrial Development Authority. Your term will run from January 9 2002 through January 19, 2003. I have enclosed a roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: Commonwealth Attorney Thomas A. McQueeney Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please t~pe or print.) Board/Commission/Committee Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle Applicant's Name Scott Goodman Full Home Address 75 Roslyn Forest Lane, Charlottesville, Va., 22901 (Albemarle County) Home Phone 434.873-2046 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Jack Jouett Employer Self Business Address 420 Park St., Charlottesville, Va, 22902 Phone 434-979-7070 Occupation/Title Attorney Date of Employment Years Residem in Albemarle County 25 Spouse's Name Debbi Goodman Previous Residence 1676 R~xl/ngtonLane, Charlottesville, Va. (Albemarle County) Number of Children 3 Education {D%erees and Graduation Dates) B.m, Univ. of va., 1975; J.D., William & Mary, 1978 9/25/1978 Memhershi.m in Fraternal. Business. Church and/ur Social Groups virginia S~e Bar; Virginia Trial Lawyers Association; Congregation Beth Israel, Charlottesville; Farmington, Keswick & Boar's Head Clubs; Charlottesville-Alhemarle Bar Association; Elks Club Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Past presidont Lane Junior Baseball League; Volunteer for Albemarle High School Athletics; State Council of Higher Education & State Board of Educalion; Sunday School Teacher at Beth Israel Reason{s} for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee To help play some role in ensuring that Albemarle's public bodies give the highest consideration to maintaining the County's beauty & quality of life in any matters that como heroin them. The information p~tiou will be released to the public upon request. Signature Date 1/2/2002 Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, VA ZZ90Z-4596 FAX: (804) Z96-5800 01-04-02A09:10 RCYD David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (4341 296-5843 FAX (4341 296-5800 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack ,louett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Januaw 15,2002 Ms. Elizabeth D. Mclvor 103 Franklin Ct. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Mclvor: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 9, 2002, you were reappointed to serve as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative on the Board of Social Services, with your new term to run from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2005. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board. I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Kathy Ralston Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr, Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Joue~ Sally H. Thomas Samuel Mille~ January 16,2002 Mr. George R. Larie 107 Tally Ho Dr. Charlottesv.~.~, VA 22901' Dear Mr.~~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 9, 2002, you were reappointed as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative to the Board of Equalization, with term to run from January 1, 2002 through December 31,2002. Duties of this Board are set out in the Code of Virginia, Chapter 32, Article 14, Sections 58.1- 3370 through 58.1-3389. The duties are more specifically set out in Section 58.1-3379 and read as follows: "The Board shall hear and give consideration to such complaints and equalize such assessments and shall, moreover, be charged with the especial duty of increasing as well as decreasing assessments, whether specific complaint be laid or not, if in its judgment, the same be necessary to equalize and accomplish the end that the burden of taxation shall rest equally upon on all citizens of such county or city. The (Director of Finance) of such county ... shall, when requested .... call the attention of the board to such inequalities in real estate assessments in his county or city as may be known to him. Every board of equalization may go upon and inspect any real estate subject to equalization by In order to be eligible for appointment, every prospective member of such board shall attend and participate in the basic course of instruction given by the Department of Taxation under Section 58.1-206. In the near future, you will receive notice of a meeting from Bruce Woodzell. the Real Estate Assessor. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this Board, please call Mr. Woodzell at 296-5856. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure cci Bruce Woodzell Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper December 12 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesw lie. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 Paula Figgatt 1617 W Beverley St Staunton, VA 24401 RE: SP-2001-032 Gillums Mountain PWSF Tax Map 73, Parcel 31C Dear Ms, Figgatt: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 2001, by a vote of 5-~, recommended denial of SP-01~32 noting that approval of this proposal would be inconsistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy as the facility is highly visible from Route 708. An approval of this monopole at the proposed height would not be related to the height of trees within 25 feet. PIease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 9, 2002. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions, or comments regarding the above noted action please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse 12-13-01 P05:55 IN STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARGARET ,DOHERTY DECEMBER 11, 2001 JANUARY 9, 2002 SP-01-32~ FINLEY~ ROBERT (Devon Mobile Telecommunications) Update since October 23rd PC hearing: At the October 23rd public hearing, the applicant r~quested a deferral of the Planning Commission's decision, in order to research other locations on the subject parcel and conduct balloon tests for the commission's benefit. The applicant then decided that all possible locations on this parcel had previously been exhausted, and therefore conducted a repeat balloon test at the original site. The repeat balloon test was observed by staff on November 16t", photographs are attached (Attachment C). Staff's recommendation has not changed as a result of the repeat balloon test. Project Description: This proposal is to install a personal wireless service facility which would implement a self- supporting 85'6" wood monopole at a top elevation of 786.5', w/th 3 flush-mounted panel antennas, all with a white anodized finish, measuring 51" high x 6.7" w/de x 1.7" deep. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a 30' x 30' fenced area, surrounded by ten feet of landscaping on three sides. The property, described as Tax Map 73 Parcel 31C, contains 39.5 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of State Route 708 approximately .5 miles north of the intersection of State Route 708 and State Route 637. The property is zoned Rural Areas, (RA). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3. Petition: According to the applicant's request, approval of this facility would "provide alternative means of communication via wireless telephone and in car use; also, provides an emergency means of communication in a time of need." In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a new personal wireless services facility for increased coverage. The proposed height is not based on the height of any tree within 25 feet of the pole, as there are no trees of similar height within any reasonable proximity of the site. Background and Character of Area: This property ~s zoned RA, Rural Areas and has been used most recently for cow pasture and residential. The 10 acre parcel immediately adjacent this site to the south, TMP 73-3 ID, has been approved for three wireless telecommunications facilities, as follows: 1) A wooden monopole ar a height not to exceed seven feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet, approved in 1999; 2) A wooden monopole at a height not ro exceed 10 feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet, approved last year; and 3) A steel monopole at a height not to exceed 7 feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet, approved in April of this year. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and has been identified on the Open Space Concept Plan as a Farmlands and Forests land use designation. The Open Space Plan's stated objectives include protecting "the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and Growth Areas," and preserving "the County's scenic resources as being essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of hfe." Staff believes that the siting of this facility, in clear view from State Route 708, in combination with the other three monopoles approved on the adjacent property would negatively impact these essential scenic and natural resources. As it located less than 500 feet from 164, the site is also within an Entrance Corridor district. At their August 20 meeting, the ARB completed a preliminary review of the proposal and expressed concern over the small number of trees existing in the vicinity of the proposed pole location, and the impact that would have on the visibility of the pole from the EC, (see ARB action letter as Attachment B). The applicant proposes to add 25 trees to the site (beyond those already proposed immediately around the compound). Staff has estimated the base elevations for the new trees and roughly calculates that only a portion of the proposed trees could approach the height of the proposed pole. The impact of the new trees will increase over the years as the trees grow, and the view from the EC is at a significant distance through existing trees in the right of way. The ARB approved the application on October 15, with the following conditions: 1. The size of the proposed "grove trees" shall be increased to a mixture of 2" caliper. Clearly indicate on sheet SU-2 all trees to be removed. Either repeat or move note #6 on Sheet A-3 to Sheet SU-2 so that it is obvious on SU-2 that trees 8 and 10 will be removed. 2. Include the proposed "grove" trees on the landscape plan, Sheet A-6, which should be "to scale." Also, include the trees in the legend on this sheet. 3. Provide an antenna mounting detail in the plan or include the following note on the plan: "Protrusions from the face of the pole shall extend no greater than V2 the diameter of the pole at the point of attachment and in no case greater than 12" from the face of the pole. The pole shall be no wider than the minimum necessary to support the proposed equipment." 4. Indicate on the plans that all equipment attached to the pole will be finished to match the color of the pole. 5. The wrong parcel number is shown on Sheet A-3. Please show the correct number, which is 73-31C. 6. On Sheet A-6 an existing Dogwood tree is identified as "to be preserved." This tree appears to be the same as tree #10, which is identified as "to be removed" on Sheet A-3. Please clarify and coordinate/correct all information. 7. Sheet SU-1 shows the proposed pole at a base elevation of between 700' and 701 '. Given the 85'6" height of the pole, the top elevation would be between 785'6" and 786'6". Sheet A-5 identifies the top elevation of the pole as 784.49', which places the base elevation of the pole at 698.99'. Please clarify, and coordinate/correct all information. A copy of the ARB action letter is attached (Attachment B). RECOMMENDATION STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Permits; Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of t 996; and County's Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy. Section 31.2.4.1, of the Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Permits: The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon afinding by the board of supervisors that such use... will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, As discussed above, the adjacent parcel to the west has three approved monopoles; therefore, this proposal should be of no detriment to that property. The proposed pole is only very slightly visible from the property adjacent to the east, similar to the other three approved poles. However, the view. of this facility from State Route 708 is clear and unobstructed as you cross the bridge, traveling south. It is.also clear from properties on the north side of 1-64, which have their access on 708. Therefore, substantial visual detriment will be caused to properties on the north side of 1-64. It is staff's opinion that the number of monopoles in such close proximity makes them more obvious to adjacent properties, and thus more visible. The three towers approved on the adjacent parcel visible from the Route 708. The new grove of trees, required by the ARB, ma3' someday obscure the view of these facilities from 1-64, and from the properties on the north side of 1-64. However, the immediate result of approving this application will be the prohferation of monopoles in one area, all slightly visible or very visible from a variety of locations, therefore creating an undesirable level of visibility throughout. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby The character of the immediate area is becoming a cluster of monopoles. This is creating a significant change in this part of the Rural Area, and the Entrance Corridor, with four wireless facilities in close proximity. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service, as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in this technology. Section 1.4.3 states as intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious communit5.'." The visual impact of the monopole would conflict with the attractiveness of the community. The proposed facility would not restrict the current uses, or by right uses on any other property. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provisions of increased wireless communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication sermces in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses issues of enwronmental effects with the following language: "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof my regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless sermce facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the apphcant is required to meet the Federal Communication Commission guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Communication Facilities Policy provides guidelines for siting wireless facilities within Albemarle County. The special use permit process or the denial of this particular application does not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Information provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that no other locations within the proposed area of service are available for construction of a new facility. ge County of Albemarle Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The following discussion considers the purpose, pnnmples, and intended achievements of the Policy: Visibility: The Policy states that the visibility is the most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities. Further, the Policy states that these facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas, such as an Entrance Corridor. Should they be proposed in Avoidance Areas, they should be denied or mitigated. Staff witnessed three balloon tests of the proposed facility and provided general comments regarding the visibility. - The tower is noted to be 85.5' tall .with a top elevation of 784.49'. The tallest tree is more than 50' away and only 68.48' tall with a top elevation of 769.9Y. The trees closer (about 15' away) are only 65.7' and 15.7' tall with the tallest top elevation of 765.72'. Therefore the tower is 14.56' and 18.77' feet above the tallest trees. The policy recommends that towers may be no more than 7' to 10' above the tallest trees. This might be an acceptable situation, if the monopole were somehow otherwise camouflaged. From homes on the north side of 1-64, and'as :you are traveling south on Route 708, over the 1-64 bridge, the proposed monopole is "skylighted", that is, the pole sticks out above the height of the mountainous horizon. Two mature tree groups on either side of the pole form a valley of space, or gap in the tree canopy, directly where the pole is located, highlighting its visibility. Additionally, there is a gap in the mature trees located within the VDOT right of way, which further exacerbates the visibility. The pole will also be visible from Route ~708 as you are driving by the site, although you'll have to look through the trees. The top of the pole will be visible from the property adjacent to the east, similar to the approved poles on the adjacent parcel. It is staff's opinion, that the proposal does not meet this criteria of the policy, as it is too -visible. UtiliZe existing structUre: The applicant has advised that no existing facility within this area would permit the additional eqmpment due to height or structure; therefore, collocation on another facilityis not feasible, according to the applicant. Appropriateness in any zoning district: The visibility is in some part a result of the proliferation of poles approved in the immediate area, which is a circumstance staff would not recommend in any district. Ground based equipment in keeping with the area character: The ground-based equipment will be screened from view by existing vegetation and elevation changes. The proposal also includes a fence and landscaping, which will likely not be visible to any great extent. Limited visibility of the antennas: The balloon test determined that the top of the tower is visible from State Route 708. The proposal calls for a white anodized finish for the antennas. Staff recommends as a condition of approval, that all equipment attached to the pole will be finished to match the color of the pole. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The Architectural Review Board has granted approval with conditions; and 2. The facility is nearly invisible from the south. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: The facility is highly visible from the north and west, specifically from the Route 708 bridge and properties on the north side of 1-64, and the top of the pole is shghtly visible from the east; The proliferation of wireless facilities in the immediate area is changing the rural character, and placing a significant visual burden on the neighborhood; and Staff believes that no amount of landscaping will camouflage this facility from State Route 708 in the next twenty years. Staffnotes that there are existing and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is staff' s opinion that approval of this proposal would be inconsistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. An approval of this monopole at the proposed height would not be related to the height of trees within 25 feet. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested special use permit. In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. In the event the Board chooses to approve this application, staffrecommends the following conditions of approval: As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 85'6", nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 784.49 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. Guy wires shall not be permitted; b. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; c. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001; d. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; e. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); f. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in the attached plan entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; g. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and twelve (12) inches at the top; and h. The pole, antennas and ground equipment shall be painted a flat, dark brown color. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP," dated October 17, 2001. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three, at the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP," dated October 17, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be 10. 11. 12. 13. permitted. However, in no case shatli:the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the pole more than 12 inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the monopole. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or ~nstallation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. The applicant shall obtain a tree conservation easement from the adjoining property owner, for that portion of the two hundred-foot buffer that is within their property. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued, The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted ~s projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. The size of the proposed "grove trees", required by the Architectural Review Board, shall be increased to a mixture of 2½" and 3½" caliper. The information included in the submittal materials, shall be clarified as follows: Sheet SU-1 shows the proposed pole at a base elevation of between 700' and 701'. Given the 85'6" height of the pole, the top elevation would be between 785'6" and 786'6". Sheet A-5 identifies the top elevation of the pole as 784.49' which places the base elevation of the pole at 698.99'; and The grading shown appears to extend approximately 15' beyond the south side of the lease area. When companng this to the tree survey, sheet SU-2, it appears that either the roots of tree 6 will be severely damaged or the tree totally removed. Please note if the tree is to be removed, or if it will be protected, the manner in which they will protect it. Also, tree 9 is located on the adjacent property and cannot be included in our restrictions unless there is an agreement with that property owner. 14. The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone. ATTACItMENTS: B. C. D. Tax Map ARB Action Letter Photos of November 16th balloon test Application plan entitled Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001; 72 Z2 ATTACHMENT A \ 29 SAMUEL SP-01-032 Gilliums Mountain PB SF ,~ 378 3CD 87 MILLER AND WHITE HALL ,35 9 ATTACHMENT B TO: ' File FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner RE: ARB Actions - October 15, 2001 DATE: October 16, 2001 The Architectural Review Board took the following actions at their meeting on October 15~h: ARB-P(SDP)-2001-$8: Snow's Storage Yards and Offices - Preliminary review of a plan to construct 11 offices and storage yards. The Board could not support the reouest for a special use permit based on the site plan that was submitted. The following comments were offered for the benefit of the applicant's next site plan submittal: 1. Show all existing and proposed topography. Clarify the relationship among the following: existing topography, proposed topography, proposed landscaping, and Avon Street. 2. Show all existing and proposed tree lines. 3. Provide some spot elevations along Avon Street and provide a section through the site from Avon Street to clarify the relationship of the site to the offices, the storage yards, and the road. 4. Include the cut sheets for the wall lights on the plan. Identify all options chosen. 5. Submit a revised landscape plan. Landscaping should minimize visibility of the development without screening it completely. It should soften the appearance of the development and help coordinate it with the nearby residential uses. Trees of a more substantial size than that currently proposed are expected. For example, 8' pines are more appropriate than 4' pines for this site. Streetscape plantings similar in character to that provided for parcel 35X would be appropriate at this site. Include interior parking lot trees and landscaping to soften the impact of the buildings. At the buildings, grouped plants are more appropriate than small shrubs spaced at wide distances. Show that utilities will not interfere with required landscaping. Although additional landscaping beyond the minimum requirements will be needed at this site, the applicant is encouraged to review the ARB guidelines, particularly regarding landscaping requirements, as a starting point. 6. Coordinate the placement of gates that provide access to the middle yards of the front row (as shown on Sheet 1 of 7) with the landscape plan (which shows trees in these locations). 7. Revise the design and/or layout of the office buildings so that the overall appearance is appropriate for the EC. Options may include: using pitched roofs instead of flat roofs; reducing the number of individual buildings and revising their size and massing while maintaining an EC orientation and appropriately scaled fenestration and detailing; revising the access and switching the positions of the front offices with the yards to reduce travelways and increase planting area at the front; providing yard access from the rear for the front row of offices so that landscaping can be added between buildings to further limit visibility of the storage areas. 8. Provide all material and color samples. Indicate the proposed material for the rear buildings. Provide samples for those visible from the EC. 9. Show a consistent edge-of-pavement line to clarify the size and location of planting beds. 10. Provide details on the appearance of the fence. The fence should be articulated such that the design suggests proportion, rhythm, and scale. The fence color should blend with the surroundings. 11. Provide a landscape buffer in the vicinity of the east end of the 115-foot-wide travelway to reduce the impact of the back row of offices/yards on the EC. ARB Action Memo October 15, 2001 -- 1 ATTACHMENT B 12. If this site/use will include any signage, the signage should be proposed as part of the overall design so that the appearance of the entire development can be coordinated throughout. ARB-F(BP)-2001-17:Finley (Devon Mobile Telecomm.) - Review of a proposal to construct a telecommunications facility consisting of a wood monopole, up to six antennas, and associated ground equipment. The Board unanimously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the following conditions, Which may be approved administratively by staff: 1. The size of the proposed "grove trees" shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and can be a mix of larger sizes. 2. Cleady indicate on sheet SU-2 all trees to be removed. Either repeat or move note #6 on Sheet A-3 to Sheet SU-2 so that it is obvious .on SU-2 that trees 8 and 10 will be removed. 3. Include the proposed "grove" trees on the landscape plan, Sheet A-6, which should be "to scale." AlsO, include the trees in the legend on this sheet. 4. Provide an antenna mounting detail in the plan or include the following note on the plan: "Protrusions from the face of the pole shall extend no greater than ¼ the diametei~ of the pole at the point of attachment and in no case greater than 12" from the face of the pole. The Pole Shall be no Wider than the minimum necessary to suppOrt the proposed ' equipment." 5. Indicate.on the plans that all equipment attached to the pole will be finished to match the color of the pole. 6. The wrong parcel number is shown on-Sheet A-3. Please show the correct number, which is 73-31C. 7! On Sheet A-6 an existing Dogwood tree is identified as "to be preserved." This tree appears to be the same as tree #10, which is identified as "to be removed" on Sheet A-3. Please clarify' and coordinate/correct all information. 8. Sheet SU-1 shows the proposed pole at a base elevation of between 700' and 701'; Given the 85'6" height of the pole, the top elevation would be between 785'6" and 786~6". Sheet 5 identifies the top elevation of the pole as 784.49' which placeS the base elevation of the pole at 698.99'. Please clarify and coordinate/correct all information. With no further business the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ARB Action Memo October 15, 2001 -- 2 11 ATTACHMENT C ~ ~n:. 7o% ATTACHMENT C 13 ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C DRA G INDE DU~. DE,~CI~IPTION NO. NO. ,4 A-I COVER ,SHEET A-2 ~PECIFICATI~ 4 A-5 ~EST ELE~ATI~ 4 A-~ C~P~D ~ACi~ DETAIl5 4 A-~ E~O~I~ C~T~OL PLAN - 4 A-I~ EROSION C~TROL DETAIL~ 4 ~-! ~ DETAIL~ 4 ~-1 ~T~CT~L DETAIL~ 4 ~-2 ~T~CTU~L DETAIL~ II 4 ~-~ ~D FENCI~ DETAIL~ 4 E-I ELECTRICAL DETAIL~ 4 E-IA ELECTRICAL 61TE PLAN 4 E-2 ELECTRICAL DETAIL~ II 4 E-3 GRO~DI~ DETAIL~ 4 E-4 G~NDI~ DETAIL~ II 4 E-5 GROUNDING DETAIL~ III 4 ~=1 ~ITE ~U~VET 5 Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP Gll I.UMS MOUNTAIN CHA005B PROJECT 51TE Nlm'lIE, ER, · %ITE NAME: ~ITE DEED I~OOWJPAGE: CURRENT ZONING: r=,OVERNING CODE', JLIRI.O, DICTIC~; CON~TRtJC. TIC~,I T"rPE= APPLICANT= CONOULTANT: E~TI~!JCTURAL ENGINEER:= ELECTRICAL ENGINEER; ~URVE¥OR: pOlUER= TELCO= ~lL L1..~'15 MOUNTAIN ~3-31-C ~ILDIN~ ~1 ~clNTI~ CMA~O~E~vILLE, VA 22~2 C~TACT: ~TEPNEN N/A ~ERT ~. FINLET CHA~O~ESVILLE, VA ANTE~A A~AT-U DE~ ~O~ILE C~iCATI~, LP 2~5 OA~ ~T~ET ~UFPALO, NT T~ E~INEE~t~ LTD. [ 1314 PLANTATION ~OAD E~AIL: mal~etr~n~om P~OVID~CE ENOINEE~I~ 415 EL~ AVENUE e~ ROANS, VA ~EI E~INEERING, INC. 23~ ~T~ LI~E~ ~T~ET HA~I~U~ VA 22~1 A~TZ AN~ ~INCHE~TE~ VA 22~1 ~TA~T~ ~I~MAEL ~. A~TZ D~INI~ Vt~INIA PM~E: (35~) ~51-2112 T.~.D. -~ NAD 2'1.._ ~ NAV'D ~ LAT. SS'OI'4~J$'' N.T~. *aS~,~ LOW. ~'3S'~.~" DII~ECTION.% TO EflTE FI~D,'I t~DANCT~JE, TAI~E l-G4 EAST TO[t.IAI~D.~ C:MAI~.LOTTE~VILLE. TA~ EXIT ~UTE ~3~/1~ AND TU~ ~IGHT ~TO DI~ ~OD~ (~OUTE ~31). ~LL~ DIC~ ~OD~ ~OAD TO D~ ~IDGE ~OAD AND TAKE ANOTHE~ ~IGHT. ~ITE ~ILL BE ~ THE [A~ROxIMA~LY 1~ MILE.). ACCE65 15 THR~M THE ~EC~D ~ATE. RIGHT ~ THE P~ EASEMENT ~D NALF~A~ D~ THE HILL ~iTHIN THE T~E~. Pi~OJECT DEE~,,I~IPTION THE pI~JECT C.O~I~T5 C~ THE IN~.TALLATION OF PC~ E."3Utt=~'IENT, CONCRETE PAD. FENCI~, ~A~OUIDE ~tD~E AND ANTE~A~ ~ A 85'-~" ~OO POLE. HANDICAP REOUIREI"IENT$ FACILITT I~ UN~ANNED AND NOT FOI~ HUMAN HAt~ITATIChN. HANDICAP ACCESS' 15 NOT ~EG~.IIRED. FACILIT'/" MA~ NO PLUM~,ING~ OF~ PAI~"-JNG. CC~Tt~6'CTOR Sl4ALL C~%ITACT '?'II,~.UTILIT¥" PRIOR TO ANT ExCAvATION AT APPROVAL Lla, T TITLE .%IGNATUI~E DATE DEV°N CO~"-lUNICATION5 ATTACHMENT D Devon Buffolo. NY 14203 Needham, MA 02494 ~UIE, MITTAL5 ~ILLUt"I$ H~,,.iNTAIN C. HARLOTTE.~*"JILLE, VA 22~3 cOvER 5MEET INT~OPUC, TION.- GENERAL NOTE,.~: ~T~'S ~I81LI~ TO E~ ~AT ~k 6T~A~ ~T ~ ~ ~E TO ~ ~E ~TI~ ~ ~ ~ ~E ~T~ ~L ~E ~ ~GT~ ~ THE THE ~T~ ~ TEST. T~ TE~T ~ILL ~E [~, ~IE DI~CTI~ ~ ~ A~D ~1~ ~ TO ~ ~IED TO THE F~ ~ ~ ~HE ~ ~6 OTHE~E ~D ~ THE ~'TRUCTUI~AL ,~TEEL NOTE~,.' C. LO~,E- OtJT I~C, UPI~NTS: NOTE: ALL r"IATERIAL~, ARE TO ESE ,~UPPLIE~ ,,~,{IZ> IN~,TALLE~ !~¥ C;C~TRACTOI~ UNLES,9 OTI-iEI;~UJI~,E NOTEID. Dev'o/ 275 Oc~ Sit,et Buffolo. NY' 1420~ BENERAL D~t'NA~ I~lm ~ 77 'A' Street Neeclham,/v~A 02.4.94 SLI~MiT TALE:, ~ILLUr'I~, PI(~Ufl'rAIN C{-IARLC~TTEE, vlLL. E. VA E~PE C. IFIC. ATIC~IE~ ./ F'~LE UTILITY LINE TELEPi4ONE / / NOTE,~: ATTACHMENT D De.on 275 Oak Street Buffalo, NY 14203 gENERAL DYNAI~IID_q 77 "A" Street Needhom, MA 02494 ,~UE~I"IlTTAL,~, A-3 20 -H~L~ C.,C~.DINA1E I~TH I ~TA T',~' OCOMPOUND LA'r'OUT Devon 275 Oak Skeet Buffalo, NY 14203 BI;HERA. L;. DYNAMII~ Wofldv4de Tei~cu~nunicatbm 77 "A" Street Needharn, MA 02494 ~UtSMITTAL6 TITLE C-,C:~POUND .L A¥C:~IT 21 'I~EE CA~OF'Y __.&1"'~ A~TEt~A. REFEI~ TO ~-I FO~ rqo~l~TIN~ DETAIL~, -'6-~ FEG~IF"'t'IENT LAYC~r OLUE,~T , ELEVATION ATTACHMENT D Devon 275 Oak Street Buffalo, NY 14203 BENERAL DYNAMICI~i 77 "A" Street Needham, MA 02494 6Ut~MITTAL,~ ILIE~,T ELEVATION A-5 22 ® e OTTP. TREE PLANTING-DEC. IDUOU,~ OLANDE, CAPE PLAN T~NE ~ E, YNTHETIC I/JI;~AP, ~ ~E~ ~E ~ TO ~T~ / ~T ALL ~lLL QTTP. TREE PLANTING-CONIFER NTE, -I LEGEND: 0 ® Devon 275 Oak Stm~t Buffalo. NY 14203 GENERAL DYNAMID~ 77 "^" Skeet Needham, JviA 02494 6UtDMITT4~L6 GILLI.JPI8 MCX.INTAIN DRY I~,RII::A~E ROAD ~:WARLOTTES'VILLE, VA LANI~$C:APE PLAN A-6 h i i / TO t=RC~,iDE F,~ITIVE DRAINAGE\ ,/ / \ / / / / / / ./ (~ ~d>l"li::)OUN~ ~UF;~AC, IN~ PLAN I i : ', ./ I i I : i I ATTACHMENT D ~)evoll 275 Oak Stm~t Suffalo. NY 14203 NE:Ia. AL IDYl/AMI 77 "A" Sheet Needharn, /v~A 02494 ~LIOMI TTAL~ 3.-7 NOTE~ Q5EC, TIC~ QE~ECTION Q6EC. TIC~ Q,~ECTION DlevoFi 275 Oak B~alo, 1~ 1 420~ DY'NAM 77 "A' Skeet N~eaham, ~ 02494 I TT~,L5 O. ILLL~E~ MOLJN?AIN ~1~¥ ~ll::~r,= ROAD C. HAt~LOTTES'v"ILLE , VA DETAILE~ J A-8 25 _) E,~C: LEGEND .a, ILT FENCE C. ON~'rt~LICTi~N RC),~D E, TA~tL IZ~TI::X'4 LEGEND EA~,EI'IENT LiNE I=fe. OPER'P¢ LINE ATTACHMENT D Devon 275 Oak Street BUffalo. NY 14203 gENERAl. DYNAM Im- B 77 "A" Skeet Needham, MA 02494 EAJE~MITTAL~, ~ILLLI~I~, MGUNTAIN CHA~OTTE~vILLE, A-9 I~ L~. MAN,aE:EMENT J='ERMANENT E~TAESILIZATICe4 L ~4.L All~gAa DI~D ~ ~TI~ ~L ~E ~T~ILI~ ~TH ~LL BE ~ ~ ~Y 31 T~L ~ ~ TO g~t~ ~ ~T~ ~LL ~E ~T~ED ~ FILL ~ agED TO ~ ~Y. ~ (a~ ~ F~ ~LL ~ ~D MAINTENANCE ~ ~IC~ ~Y ~ ~l~O TO ~ THAT ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ST ~IT~ 4. ~16 ~JECT I~ TO ~ C~T~ ~ T~ ~ VI~IA CON,5,TRLICTIC~ C::>F A GILT QFENCE (LUITH UJIRE .E,I.JPI='OI~T) NTE, SWFET FLOIU IN6TALLATION FLC~ CON,~,TI~LJCTION ~ A 61LT OFENCE (UJITWC>UT LUIRE 6UPPOI~T) NTb 27,f Ook $1ree~t Buffalo. NY 14203 BIE::N£1:~AL. OYI~AMI r~_S 77"^" S~eet Neec~harn, MA D2494 E;,UBM I TTAL S ~IL LI./r'L~ MGUNTAIN C. HAt~.LOTTE,~VILLE, vA EI~:::)51CN ~-GNTROL DETAIL~ 27 ATTACHMENT D ( OPOLUEI~/TE LC.O E, TUIS-UP.~.. // / / ~ // I/ / / Y /// // I ~ // / /I/ i~/ / OELECTR:ICAL ~ITE PLAN B~ffob, NY 14203 77"A" Stm~! ~e~rr% i~ 02494 GILLUIflE~ I"IGUNTAI DR'~ tSI~II::~E ROAD C::MAiI~LQTT E,~V'i LLE, VA EL ECT~ICAL- ~ITIE PLAN IqE~A '-R FU~ED TYPE Nf~Z~ Ri~E5 OELECTRICAL LAYOUT LOAOCENTEI~ ~ POIJJEi~ BOARD ELEYATION Devon 275 Oak Skeet Buffalo, NY 14203 ra ENERAL DYNAM I I:,B 77 "A" Slmef Needhom, MA 02494 ~UE~I~IITT,6,L S, E-1 29 ATTACHMENT D NAI'IEPLATE E)CI-.IEDULE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY OF DEVON MOBILE L PROPERTY OF DEVON MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVON MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHA005B ELECTRICAL EC:a.III=f,IENT E~PEC:IFIC:ATIC3q %o o PANEL 8C. HEDULE ; L_.~__: I TELC. O INTEt~CAC;E/ALAI~1''1 150X QTELCO/ALAf~I'I TEI~I'IlNATIC~ QPCXUER: TERr'IlNATIC:~I 5INGLE LINE DIAGRAH NTe, I)ev~n 275 Oak Street Buffab, NY 14203 IE: NEI~,AL DYNAMIC2 IS 77'A" Street Needham, i~A02494 SLItSMITTAL E:, C.I.4ARL OTTE,~VILLE, 22~3 .,"L...ECTI~ICAL_ DETAIL~' II 3O : 6LEEVE CAU 8" (TYPJ OC, C~PC~IND ~I~OLINDING LA¥C~T OE~UIPI"IENT GROUNDING I,GOI'IETI~IC, Devon 275 Oak Street Buffalo, NY 14203 El ENERAL DYNAMICB 77 "A" $1reet Needhom, MA 02494 ~t.I~HITT ~-ILLI/'fl5 P1C;~;NTAIN cHAt~LOTTEE, V'ILLE, MA C~R~CAJNDIN~ I~ETAIL$ d CD?~D ~OD D.TA"L ~OX eAU ACZ;E~ SENDS OC..=t:~OUND f~OD LUITId INE, PECTION POinT NTe O~.~,~.C~,,ID ESAI~ DETAIL AI~ENNA CABLE ~__ ~ OANTENNA CAESLE GI~C::)UNDING DETAIL ATTACHMENT D 275 Oak$tr~et Buffalo, ra ENE:RAI.- DYINAM 113IS 77 "A" Street Ne, echam, h~ 02494 E~UI~i"'IITT,Z~,L5 Ltli~i~BiTED, GILLUI-I~*'~IOUNTA IN DE'Y' EI~II:;~E EOAD C;I-IAI~L.GT 'r B6v'ILLE, VA c3ROUNDII,,4G DETAIL..~ II E-4 32 Devon 275 Oak $1met Buffalo, NY 14203 ~I~NI~RAL DYNAF41~ ~l 77 "A" Sheet Needham, MA 02494 E~UIP~Ii~T JUI"~EI~ J ~.~LE QANTENNA C. AE~LE ~I~C::)L.~DIN~ I~I~,EI~ TOLL ,~,UiSMITTAL,~ DETAILS III E-5 ALPHA E~ETA ANTENNA TYPE MICRO,TRIP MI~RO6TRIP QUANTITY TILT AZIMUTH RAD CENTER (T"r'P. ~ 2) ~,3'-'~/' (T'r'P. ~ 2) ANTENNA CAE~LE TYPE I-5/E," 1-5/~," ANTENNA LENGITt.4 (APPROX.) 5'-O" ANTENN,&, C..AE LE COLOf -C..OIDING ALPHA E~ETA G, AhlMA , ,ATX E~TX C. TX CRX I RED I GREEN 2 RED 2 GREEN ~, RED · LC~,IN~ FR~"I EQJIPMENT O?TENNA CAI~LE LA¥CXJT ~ ~NTE~4A (pART l,k~. OANTENNA ,~PECIFICAT ION,~ BETA 6ECTOR AZIMUTH Tx~x / ALPHA E~ECTOR AZII'~UTW ANTENNA ('~ TI~,NSMITTER / RECEIVER ANTENNA ANTENNA~ AND CAI~,LE~: WILL REPLACE IT, ~r ~ C.,~N'r~A~TO'~ I~ COAX TEST INC~: ATTACHMENT D 275 Oak:: $1met 8uffolo, WY 14203 NEll. AL DYNAMll3 ~ 77'^' Stmel Needham. I~4A 0:Z494 SLIE~HITTAL. 5 ~ILLUI"I~ I"IO. IIqTAIN (C;NA~E~) CWAPJ-OTTE~,VILLE, V'A 22~D3, DETAILS ~/,A,L.I'C~T I'IIGROFLIrC? 12: ~l~!~l I VALI'IOI4T MII~LECT ~'4" TK~tEI'I~ION LINE ~Jt':x~E -- Caf~ ,~U~ENNA NOT T~ I 114" 0TF~AN~I661ON LINE ESRIDGE DETAIL G,~ECTION I~".1'-~" FRONT ¥1ELU OW-FRAME DETAILE:, YA[.,I"IONT MICRC:q::LECT TYPICAL TRAN,~'II~,~,IC:~I LINE E~RIDGE ~,IDE ¥1ELU ANTENNA P'IOUNT DETAIL, Devon 275 Oak Slreef Buffalo, NY 142D3 GENERAL DYNAMIr'': ,'~ 77 "A" Sheet Needl~om, NtA 02494 6UESMITTAL~ S-', 35 -} -) OCONC, RETE I=AD OEC3UII=,P1ENT PAl::) I_AT'OUT 4 E~TLIES-Ul=' I_C:)CATIONE~ Devon 275 Oak Street Buffalo, I, IY 14203 [3£NrRAL DYNAMICS 77 "A" $1met Needham. MA 02494 GILLt.~5 HC~INTAIN CWAI~LOTTEE~vILLE, 22~3, ~TI~IJC13Jt~t,L DETAILE~ S-2 36 FENCE ELE~ATIC~I G ~,.A~E E~ECTION GFOOTIN~ I~ETAIL o o OFENCE E:,ECTION Devon 275 Oak Simet Buffoio, NY 14203 m EN ERAL DYNAMI~ B 77 'A" Sh'eet Needhom. ~ 02494 SUBMITTAL5 GILLUI'"I~ MC~JNTAIN (CHA~SE~) DiOr' E~RI~E ROAD CHAf~LOTTE~VILLE, VA 22~ LI,I~DD EN FENCING DETAIL~, 37 % % ! ! 'rEL'"F'HONE ./ LINE SITE GENEI~AL 5lTL INFOf~'IATION L~TITU~E ~'3~'2~" (POLE) LO~ITUDE ~'4~'¢~.D" (POLE) G~OMND ELEvaTION ~¢.~O (~E~A~ AT POLE LOCATION) ATTACHMENT D 275 Ook SJmet Buffalo, NY 14203 GENERAL DYNAM limb 77 "A" Street 4eedham, ~ 02494 5UE~MITTAL6 MOUNTAIN (CWA~SE~) C, WAI~LOTTESVILLE. VA 51TE 5Ut~VE¥ SU-! 38 © / / I I I I I TI~EE · ~E~. SPECIE5 Ff~OM CENTER OF TOLUER TREE ELEV', 1 24" RED OAK, N &3'4.~)'2&" E 25.3~' '1&.5."12' 2 ~u" DOGLBOOD N 'I~'2~,'5,3" E 2D.°~4' '113.~50' 15,.'lO' 3 2~," P-.ED OAK N DD'~'D'I" E ~5,.4~,' 'l&~.~3' 4, 4" UJHITE PINE N &~'2~'14" E 52.~2' 112.~4,' 5 IE," MAPLE 5 41'O1'~3" E D3.&3' '1D'L23' ,& &" F'RINCE55 TREE 5 13'.~4'5~," E 32.1"1' '12~-3c5' '1 ID" MAPLE ~ OC5'5,3/D~,'' LB 41.24' ]DD.,&l' ~, 2-1/2" CEDAR 5 4"i*OI'2cJ'' LU 22.~&' "[11~3' ~ 30" t~.ED OAK N ~,8'I~'OD" LB 4E,.22' 'I~,~.E,&' lO ~J" DO~,IJJOOD N OD*14'2~" E 20.~2' '124.31' 21.~' II D~" RED OAK. N 00' 1'1'O2" LB l~&.~JaJ' 'I'14-4c3' '~2.4D' NOTE: LEASE AREA, COMPOUND, A~CE55 AND C, ENTER~ ~ TOLBER SURVEYED ~¥ OTHEf~5. GENERAL .~ITE INFORMATION ~ITE AIDDRE55 ONA~LOTTEDVILLE, VA 22~¢D LATITUDE LONGITUDE ~¢'4& '¢¢.3" (POLE) ~ROUN~ ELEVATION ~ (~E~A~ AT POLE LOCATION) OTI~EE T~EE e~ WiLUAM L. TONEY, JR. Devon 275 Oak street ~ufla~. NY t4~ I~ I~N ERAI.. DYNAMII3~ 77 "A" Street Need~3m, Iv~ 02494 5UE~t'IlTTAL~, GILLUME~ MOUNTAIN ' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22~ TI~EE ,~URVE¥ SU-2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 December 12, 2001 Bill Mechnick, ASLA 310 East Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2001-036 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements SP-2001-044 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements SDP-2001-091 Darden Towe Park Phase III Minor Tax Map 78, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Mechnick: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above,noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. These recommendations for approval is subject to the following: · SP-2001-036 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements - Recommended approval subject to the following condition: 1. A stream buffer mitigation plan must be approved and bonded with the Albemarle County Engineering Department prior to the beginning of any construction or grading. · SP-2001-044 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements - Recommended approval subject to the following condition: I. The fill in the floodplain shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Land Planning and Design Associates. Inc., entitled "Darden Towe Park, Phase III Development" (sheets L-l, L-2, L- 2A, and L-3), dated July 31, 2001 and last revised on November 8, 2001. · SDP-2001-091 Darden Towe Park Phase II! Minor- Approved the request for a preliminary site plan for a canoe launch, trails and a picnic shelter on 12.1 acres as proposed. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 9, 2002. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate -to contact me. Michae~ Planner 12-13-01 P05:54 IN Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MICHAEL BARNES DECEMBER 11, 2001 JANUARY 9, 2001 SP 01-036 DARDEN TOWE (CANOE LAUNCH IN THE FLOODPLAIN) SP 01-044 DARDEN TOWE (F~,L IN THE FLOODPLAIN) Applicant's Proposal: Thc applicant, the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Charlottesville Parks Department, has applied for a minor site plan amendment (SDP 01-091) for the Darden Towe Park. This minor amendment proposes a picnic shelter, a handicap canoe launch, and a paved pedestrian/bike trail (See Attachment A). The County Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant apply for two special use permits in order to proceed with the project. Thc first special use permit would allow a canoe launch in the floodplain. The second special use permit is required because a short section of pedestrian/bike path requires fill in thc floodplain. Petition: Thc petitions are for fill in the floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.2 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for landfill permits, and for a boat launch in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2A (2), which allows for water related uses. The property is Dardcn Towe Park and is described as Tax Map 78 Parcel I. It contains 12.1 acres and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Elk Drive [Route # 1421]. The property is zoned R-1 (Residential). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Parks and Greenways in Neighborhood 3. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant proposed a public canoe launch on this stretch of the Rivanna River to serve thc recreational needs of the community. Also, because this stretch of the river is relatively fiat and calm, it is ideal for canoeist with disabilities. The canoe launch will be handicap accessible. Secondly, thc greenway plan in Comprehensive Plan calls for a Class A standard trail in this location. The proposed pedestrian/bike trail will meet these objectives and standards. The fill is required to permit a smooth transition between Free Bridge Lane and the rest of the bike trail. Character of the Area: Darden Towe Park is a well-used public amenity comprised of several playing fields, picnic shelters, and a wide floodplain. The Park extends south to Free Bridge and is flanked by the Rivanna River and Free Bridge Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. Plannin~ and Zoning History.: Darden Towe Park was created by the City and the County in the late 1980's and is jointly managed by the two governments. There is not any subdivision or zoning history. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a Park and Greenway. The proposal is within thc suggested uses for this land usc designation. The Comprehensive Plan also makes two direct recommendations for the property. The first recommends the creation of a greenway trail along the entire length ofthe South Fork of the Rivanna River from the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the end of the Urban Area (the Interstate 64 Bridge). The second recommendation calls a Class A level trail in this area which is built to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act. Finally, the Comprehensive plan calls for community level park facilities within the park The proposed project meets the first recommendation by installing the first section of greenway trail in this reach of the river. The proposal fulfills the second recommendation by creating a 10- foot wide, paved, handicap accessible trail that meets or exceeds the Comprehensive Plan's standards for a Class A trail. The proposal meets the £mal recommendation by adding thc following community level park facilities: a canoe launch, another picnic shelter, and the bike trail. The Neighborhood Three Study, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, also recommends the installation ora pedestrian/bike path as well as the boat launch along this stretch of the river. In addition, the Study recommends that handicapped access be provided to this section of thc river. The project meets all of these objectives. The Neighborhood Model Staffhas also analyzed this proposal for conformity with Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) of the. Comprehensive Plan and with the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. These principles are identified below and highlighted within this section for context within the. Land Use Plan. The 12 principles of thc Neighborhood Model are as follows: · Pedestrian Orientation · Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths · Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks · Parks and Open Space · Neighborhood Centers · Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale · Relegated Parking · Mixture of Uses · Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability · Redevelopment · Site Planning that Respects Terrain · Clear Edges 1. Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. (Parks and Open Space; Site Planning that Respects Terrain). While all of the proposed development is within the floodplain, it increases public access to the river. Creating access is an important goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, the plan seeks to minimize the environmental impacts within the floodplain where possible. 2 2. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. This standard is not applicable to this project. Limit access points to minimize the impact of development on major roads. The canoe launch portion of the project ~will use the existing Darden Towe Entrance. The project does call for a small parking lot immediately offofFree Bridge Lane. However, staff does not believe that this parking lot entrance will affect the traffic flow on Free Bridge Lane. 3. A sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments; such con'nections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks) This project is really the destination point for other pedestrian wails and sidewalks leading to the Park. Development of this amenity will further develop thc incentives for neighboring residents to walk or ride their bikes to the park. 4. Provide for ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian modes (Pedestrian Access and Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks). The pedestrian/bike trail is the first in a series of greenway trails along this reach of the Rivanna River. The canoe launch opens the possibilities for other canoe launches either upstream (e.g., where Route 29 crosses the South Fork) or downstream (e.g., the City's Greenway Park, or Milton, or even somewhere in Fluvanna County). Together, these two amenities diversify and improved the multi-modal opportunities in the portion of the Neighborhood. 5. Underground utilities shouM be provided in new developments. This standard is not applicable to this project because no lighting or other electical needs are associated with the proposal. 6. Features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality shouM be provided. The pedestrian/bike path will be paved as well as the parking lots for the canoe launch and the path's trailhead; however, the percentage of impervious coverage is so minimal that no stormwater management will be required by the County. 7. BuiMing orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front ofbuiMings. (Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale; Relegated Parking) This standard is not applicable to this project. 8. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. The project proposes no lighting. 9. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. (Redevelopment) There are no buildings of historical importance on this site. 10: The phasing of developments should match se~iee and infrastructure availability and capacity. This standard is not applicable to this project. 11. Overall development density should be as high a level as is practical. This standard is not applicable to this project. 12. The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. There are no adjacent residential areas. 13. Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. (Buildings and spaces of Human Scale). This standard is not applicable to this project. 14. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. (Mfordability with Dignity) This standard is not applicable to this project. 15. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or counteract those features. (Site Planning that Respects Terrain) There is grading proposed is minimal. The grading for the path that requires the special use permit is also minimal. Please see the discussion below. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board o_f Supervisors hereby reserves unto itsel_f the right to issue aH special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits_for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a_[~nding by the Board o_f Supervisors that such use will not be o_f substantial detriment to ad/acent properS, No detriment to adjacent properties is foreseen. The effects from the fill in the floodplain and the environmental impact fi.om the canoe launch will be minimal. Please see the "Engineering Analysis" section of this report (page 5). that the character o_f the district will not be changed thereby, The proposal willenhance the character of the Park and the public's utilization of the river. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent o_f this ordinance, The proposal compliments the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Permitted uses in this district should be park related. These amenities proposed augment the capacity of the park to meet a wide range of users. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 o_f this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in the Supplementary Regulations .section of the Ordinance governing a canoe launch, picnic shelter, or bike path. and with the pub[ic health, sa_fe~_ and general welfare. 4 Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare. Please see Engineering analysis for a fuller discussion of the fill in the floodplain effects. Engineering Analysis: SP 01-36 Canoe Launch in the Floodplain The canoe launch will impact the floodplain with its parking lot of seven spaces, circular turn around, and canoe launch (See Attachment B, page L2-A). However, the applicant has reduced the impervious cover and limited the amount of grading proposed for the project. A mitigation plan has been submitted to the Water Resources Manager and is currently being reviewed. It is anticipated that the mitigation plan will offset the impacts of the proposal to the stream buffer. Thus, Engineering recommends approval of the special use permit with the condition that a stream buffer mitigation plan is approved and bonded. SP 01-44 Fill in the Floodplain The Engineering Department has reviewed the cross-sections for the proposed fill areas submitted by the applicant. The total amount of fill is at most 1.1% of the 100-year floodplain cross-sectional area. The 100-year floodplain in the area of fill ranges from approximately 555 feet to 785 feet in width. The Engineering Department feels that the proposed fill will have no significant impact on the 100-year water surface elevation in this area of the Rivanna River. The Engineering Department therefore recommends approval of this special use permit. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The proposed use fulfills several goals specifically expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal increases pedestrian mobility and public access to the river. 3. The environmental impacts to the floodplain are minimal. Staff has identified the following factor, which is unfavorable to this request: 1. The mitigation plan has not yet been approved for the impacts to the stream buffer. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for the canoe launch (SP 01-36) with the following condition: 1. A stream buffer mitigation plan must be approved and bonded with the Albemarle County Engineering Department prior to the beginning of any construction or grading. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for fill in the floodplain (SP 01-44) without conditions. ATTACHMENTS: A - Vicinity Map B - Plans for the proposed project. ATTACHMENT A ol NSTALL ~ PAIL SI~N Dh" OHNE~ / D~'IN PA~D~I~N TOP4E x-PO NOT ~NTER '-~A~K ~AIL ~ 5TA. NO. 20+45,00 MUTOD STD. Trail L~7out Sra. 20+48.00 - Sra. 22+50.00 · ' - .' 'F~'7'~ ...... ' ~-PRIh4E AN~ POUD~ SEAL SIJF~FA6~ ~ ~ITIAL ~EA~: O,2ogoL/sq. gcJ; OF MUTOP STP. ~t1-I ' OfqS-2 Ic~u~ osohoi~ ~ 18 I~s./ sq 51¢N BT O~NE~ ad.'o~ ~SP stone ~o oF *SP 5~one. .......... · ' "'.:,_,.i.i ~__}i,' '" ' ~i"] GRIFtCAL SLOPES OVE~- 25% VEGE1-ATION 'FO DE REi'tCX/EP . FL25'- -T->FP.'-'~ .// / _P. azki.n_g_...Ar_ea _L._az.o_u_t_ ........................ Scale: 1":10' 3~5 . ' ....................................................... _ ~ -~ ~-325 "~ " .'~\ \ .... Trail Layout Sta. 22+50.00- Sta. 28+50.00 Trail Layout NSTALL 5~x84" I~,OP LENGTH OR A5 FIELD FtITH FLARED END SECTION VDOt INV. N~ cRADE Sta. 28+50.00 - Sta. 34+50.00 ¢ANB¥ LOAM _IMIT5 OF .~ OVER CULVERT CPdTICAL 5LOPE5 OVER 25% CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN 2~, ORO55 PITCH FROM-~ -" :": ~TA. NO. 24+EO - 82+00 '~ FEDERAL AID PROJECT I ST~ -ATTACHMENT B _~. ] ~---~-0JEOT _ /EM97- 104 106, 6 I i ...........~-- / PE101,PE. 102 RW20],C501 ~; ............ Z Z .. L2 / ~-... ~o~ ' 'i!i' '/"L~ 7: : ;~ ': C~ATO~TIN SILT LOAM D' ,I~ilPTH / / / Canoe Launch Layout 1,, = 20' '325-- o~, (,'¢.0'¢ \ .c..pp_o_._e. ~ _a _mE._. L_a_y ouL ....................... 1/4" = 1 '-0" / ./ // , X Z o Z Trail Layout Sta. 34+50.00 -Sta. 39+00.00 5TAP~ 51LT LOAM FEOERAL PROJECT ¢ONG~TE 5LAB AT EXICTIN~ ~ 5LOPE A5 ~HOHN 5~=E DETAIL 05-D2 F~.OM ¢TA. NO. ~*00 - PEDESTRIAN tra_il L_~out Sra. 39+50.00 - Sra. 42+10.37 LPDA L3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 December 27, 2001 Wayne S. Campagna E911 Project Coordinator 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP~2001-048 Regional Public Safety Radio Proiect (Peters Mountain) Tax Map 50 Parcel 1D Dear Mr. Campagna: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 18, 2001, by a vote of 6-1 recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. Should the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historic properties, based on findings of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell pole review, the Emergency Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the Planning Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means of mitigation. Antennas, dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall be limited to those that are necessary for establishing the public service radio system. This facility shall not be used for the provision of personal wireless communications services. The top of the pole shall never exceed 110 feet above the ground level, or 1,804 feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). Only the two proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend above the top of the pole In no cases shall those attachments extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the top of the pole. ~2-28-O~Aog:04 RCVD 10. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. All ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads, and pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's Mountain Site Plan and Elevation d. The mounting structure shall be a monopole of the minimum diameter necessary to perform it's function and no greater than 36" at the base and 18" at the top. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided herein: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. b. Each outdoor luminaire'shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. c. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. · A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. The applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement strategies to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T site on Peter's Mountain. A tree planting plan of native species which could include white pine, short leaf southern pine and others, shall be developed within the 200-foot buffer. The planting plan shall be subject to the review of the ACE Coordinator. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. The commission also recommended that the following information be provided to staff prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 9, 2002: a propagation analysis which shows the impact of height reduction of the tower and antenna on the signal in increments of 5 feet, down to the tree tops; research of the possibility of lowering the tower and increasing the height of the whip antenna; the potential for reducing the diameter of the tower; and information regarding the possible lowering of the microwave dishes. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 9, 2002. Any new or additiona information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. -- - If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse SP-2001-048 Regional Public Safety Project (Peter's Mountain) - Recommended/Requested changes to Planning Commission recommended conditions - January 9, 2002: Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources .,,.,4 ,~.. ^,4,,I ....r, ..... ;, ~' ............... 7 ........on H~stcdc Prccc,";ction shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. Should the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historic properties, based on findings of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell pole review, the Emergency Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the Planning'Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means of mitigation. Antennas, dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall, be limited to those that are necessary for establishing the public service radio system. This facility shall not be used for the provision of personal wireless communications services. The top of the pole shall never exceed 110 feet above the ground level, or 1,804 feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). Only the two proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend above the top of the pole. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the top of the pole. - The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. Ail ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads, and pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's Mountain Site Plan and Elevation The mounting structure shall be a monopole of the minimum diameter necessary to perform it's function and no greater than 36" at the base and 18" at the top. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided herein: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. b. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. c. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement ,.:,~and-:'lease:;arca shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Devel~l~h{'{or apPrb~al'iU~l'l'¢construction or installation asSociated with the pole and equipment, pad,, including necessary access for constructi.on or installation, shall be in 10. 11. accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred,foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans. The applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement strategies to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T site on Peter's Mountain. (Applicant requests removal of this condition.) A tree planting plan of native species, which could include white pine, short leaf ~outhern pine and others, shall be developed within the 200-foot buffer adequate to provide screening of the ground equipment and base of tower and, through maturity of the plantings, ultimately provide screening of the tower. The planting plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the ,^,CE Cccrd~,",~tcr Director of Planning & Community Development. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permit-tee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. RECEIV~,D AT BOS MEETING Clerk's Initials: ~ f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 01-048 Peter's Mountain (ECC 800 MHz System) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This proposal is for the construction of a wireless public safety communications facility within a 3600 square foot, fenced compound (AttaChment A). The property, described asTax Map 50/Parcel ID, contains approximately 2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas (Attachment C) and is currently under a contract with the conditions that the purchase would not be executed unless approval is granted for the special use permit. This site lies within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is designated as Rural Areas 2 by the Comprehensive Plan, STAFF CONTACT(S): Stephen Waller AGENDA-DATE: Planning Commission: December 18, 2001 Board of Supervisors: January 9, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: SP 01-048 ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: The proposed emergency communications facility would implement a 11 O-foot tall lattice tower with three 20-foot long whip antennas, two radome antennas, six (6) feet in diameter, that would be mounted at heights of 85 and 95 feet above ground level. All transmitting equipment would be contained within a 384 square foot utility building and additional ground-based equipment would consist of a power generator and a fuel tank on concrete pads. At its November 27, 2001 hearing, the Planning Commission requested that additional information be provided by the applicant to aid in the effort toward developing an effective assessment of the possible visual impacts of the proposed facility upon nearby scenic roadways and properties within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The sides of the lattice tower would be 30 wide at the b~se and taper to 30 inches at its top. In order to provide additional background information, the original staff report for this request is included with this executive summary (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: This executive summary is provided with information submitted by the applicant as an addendum to the application and submittal packet for the special use permit, which was identified as Attachment A in the original staff report. The new information includes a series of photo simulations, based on the observation of balloon tests that were performed on December 3, 2001 and December 4, 2001, to demonstrate the appearance of various types of tower designs from different points of view. Staff notes that the applicant is also in the process of having a viewshed analysis, which should be available prior to the Planning Commission hearing, developed by the Office of Mapping Graphics and Information Resources. That analysis and any other relevant additional information will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as it becomes available. Staff observed one of the balloon tests at which a balloon 5 ½ feet in diameter was flown at a height of 110 feet above the ground level from the proposed tower site and took photos from several points of view (Attachment B). Staff determined that the balloon was visible from Route 231, north and south of the intersection with Route 640; Route 640, east of the intersection with Peter's mountain Road; and, several points along Route 641. Additional information from the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), consisting of a viewshed analysis and comparative study of a wireless facility with a similar structure, is also provided with this executive summary. This information should be considered as an addendum to earlier correspondence fi:om the PEC, which was identified as Attachment D in the original staff report (Attachment C). ATTACHMENTS: A - Original Staff Report. B - Balloon Test Photos C - Additional Information from PEC Photo Simulations ATTACHMENT B /? ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B /? ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 13 ATTACHMENT C PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL C, ., , Promoting and pro~cccing the Piedmont s rural econom), natural resources, hi~or~ To: Mb~marl~ Co~ Plug Co~ssion Date: December 4, 2001 ~: Proposed Tower at P~ters Mounta~ (SP-200148) ~e Pie~ont Enviromenml Council presents the a~ched ~fomtion ~ order for ~e Plmg Comssion to co~ider its vahe prior to ~e anticipated vote on ~s SP. ~s ~fomtion ~ presented for co~iderafion ~d not as a final or conclusive ~gmem about the impact of~is tower on the SW Mo~tam R~I Historic Disffict. 1) Viewshed Analysis: The PEC has used its computer capabilities to generate a prel~ vieWshed analysis for the proposed tower. The attached graphics simulate the visibility of the tower at a point 24 meters' above the base (about 75-feet) as viewed from a vantage point 1.5 meters above the ground (approximately 5-feet). GREEN indicates poiiits along the line of view from which the rower would be visible. 'The areas of green indicate that this tower would be visible from numerous points within the District, along Routes 22, 231 and 20, and from over 40 contributing structures in the District. 2) "Field Trip" to Piney Mountain: There has been much debate about the ability of a balloon test to replicate a tower. Attached is a series off photographs indicating that an existing tower similar to the proposed tower is, in fact, visible from distances and vantage points similar to those that exist within the SWMRHD. The PEC's intent is to suggest that the observation of an actual tower, under similar conditions, will provide a better test ofpotential visible impact than a balloon on a string. It is the PEC's opinion that photographs Simply do not replicate actual human observation. Landscape views that seem quite clear in person do not correspondingly appear as vivid in photographs. For example, driving north on Route 29, one can view the lattice toWer on the northern slope of Piney Mountain after cresting the hill at Airport Road. This point On 29 is approximately 3-miles from the tower. From other vantage points to the east and west, it is visible at even greater distances and, obviously, as you get closer the visibility increases. Using the 3-mile mark as a reference, there is a 5-mile stretch of 231 that is well within this distance from the stat of Peters Mountain. Some might argue that Peters Mountain is at a higher elevation than Piney--one need only apply some basic trigonometry to prove that the point-to-point comparison of the Piney tower at 3-miles is virtually equivalent to viewing peters Mt from 3 miles away. As noted on the viewshed graphics, this is only preliminary and should be accompanied.with more explanation than this letter. As we refine and clarify this analysis, we will make those images available. If there are any questions or comments, I welcome your calls (977-0830) or e-mails (jwerner~pecva.org). Thank you. CC: Stephen Waller, County Planning Staff Attached: 3 photographs of Piney Mountain tower with map, 2-page viewshed analysis of Peters Mountain Tower. ~ Albemarle I, omtoun Omuga Pt-inca WUllam Rappahannock P.O. Box 460 " 1111 Ro~ Hill Drive 802 Children's C,~mu:r Rd., S.W. 130 West Main Street 9116 Ccnmr Street 12717 Lee Highway Watt'triton, VA 20188 ' Suite'l- Leesburg, VA 20175 Suite 206 Manassas, VA 20110 Washington, VA 22747 540-347-2334 charlottesville, VA 22903 703-669-4990 P.O. Box 266 703-367-0069 540-987-9441 Fax:. 540-349-9003 - "-' 80~. -977-2033 Fax: 703-669-2213 Orange, VA 22960 Fax: 703-367-0830 Fax: 540-987-9443 ~? Fax: 804-977-6306 540-672--0141 ~) ~ ATTACHMENT C Pete~s Mountain Line o~ Sight Analysis Along Rt~ 20 & Rt~ 22 Pie. ase note:_ ._AnahLs_~s assumes a 24 meter tower and a 1.5 meter person N Visible Not Visible Obstructed View Stream/River Road Contour (1 OM) November 20, 2001 Source: US Census ATTACHMENT C Contributing Structures In the Southwest Mtn. Rural Historic District From Which The Proposed Peters Mtn~ Tower Would Be Visible N Please note: Anal~_sis assumes a 24 meter tower and a 1.5 m~-ter nerson Visible Not Visible Stream/River Road Contour (1 OM) November 20, 2001 Source: US Census Bureau, USGS ATTACHMENT C Piney Mountain Tower from Route 29 ATTACHMENT C To: From: Date: RE: PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promo~i~g and #rotectzng ~he Piedmont~- rural cconom% natural resources, history and beau~, Albemarle County Plaml{mg_Commission Jeff Wemer, AICP /_'~'~[ ~ December 8, 2001 ] '"--,3 ~ Proposed Tower at Peters Mountain (SP-2001-48) ATTACHMENT C · 402 . As I mentioned in my 12/4/01 letter, the Piedmont Environmental Council has been working on a view shed analysis to evaluate the impact of the proposed tower on the SW Mountains Rural Historic District. I also mentioned that the graphics presented were preliminary drafts and we were working to clarify the data - parameters and fmc-tune the computer model. While the draft indicated limited visual impact of the tower, we felt it was prudent to get this to you as this is an important issue and that draft did indicate that the tower would be visible from points within the Histori6 District. Early this week, we sought the assistance of persons with expertise in the computer model we were using. They were extremely helpful in improving our use of this complex tool. Attached is a result of that work. The attached graphic clearly indicates that the visibility of this tower will be far more extensive than the 12/4 draft. This expansion of the tower's visibility was not unexpected as the draft version indicated areas directly to the east of Peters Mountain from which the tower might not be visible. Simple field observation proves that this was incorrect. If there are any questions or comments, I welcome your calls (977-0830) or e-mails (jwemer~pecva.org). Thank you. CC: Attached: Stephen Waller, County Planning Staff 1 -page viewshbd analysis of Peters Mountain Tower. (hand dated 12-%01) EO. Box 460 - "- 1111 ~ ~ Nyc 8~ ~'s ~ ~., S.~E 130 West M~ S=eet 9116 Center S~ecr 12717 Lee ~ghsvay W~mmn, VA 20188 ' ~m'1 ......... ~b~g, VA 20175 S~re 206 Man~as, VA 20110 W~hin~on, VA 22747 540-347-2334 ~o~c, VA 22903 703-669~990 EO. Box 266 703-367-0069 540-987-9~1 540-349-9003 804-977-20~3 F~x: 703-669-2213 O~ge, VA 22960 F~x: 703-367-0830 Fax: 540-987-9443 ' F~: 8~-977-6306 540-672-0141 ' 3~I ATTACHMENT C Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District Viewshed Analysis of Proposed Peters Mtn. Tower Est. Please note: Analysis assumes a 25 Meter Tower Proposed Tower Area From Which Tower Would Be Visible Stream/River Road Contour (1 OM) November 20, 2001 Source: US Census Bureau, USGS ATTACHMENT C To: Jeff Wemer From: John Foster Subject: Southwest Mountains Rural Historic Digtrict Viewshed Analysis Date: 12/10/01 Attached is a copy of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District viewshed analysis. The ~een shading on the map indicates the area. from which the proposed Peters Mountain tower would be visible. The analysis was conducted using Arcview 3,2 software and its 3D Analyst extension. The underlying data layer that makes this analysis possible is a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) file that divides the map into a grid and assigns each cell a specific elevation and aspect (direction of slope), accurately replicating the elevation of northwestern Albemarle County's terrain. The red dot on the map indicates the proposed location of the Peters Mountain tower. For the'purposes of this analysis the tower was assigned a height of 25 meters. The visibility of the tower was then calculated using Arcview's viewshed tool, which performs a tine of sight analysis from the top of the tower to every elevation point on the map. ' The one drawback to th./s analysis is that it does not take tree cover into consideration. However, ~ven that the height of the proposed tower would be significantly ttigher than most'trees, tree cover would not be a major factor in the tower's visibility with.in the Southwest Mountains Rurai Historic District, If you have any questions regarding the methods used to produce this map, please let me know. Jetta troster GIS Analyst STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER NOVEMBER 27, 2001 DECEMBER 12, 2001 SP 01-048 PETER'S MOUNTAIN (]gCC 800 MHZ SYSTEM) Applicant's Proposal: This proposal is for the construction of a wireless public safety communications facility within a 3600 square foot, fenced compound (Attachment A). The facility would implement a 110:foot tall lattice tower with three 20-foot long whip antennas, two radome antennas, six (6) feet in diameter, that would be mounted at heights of 85 and 95 feet above ground level. All transmitting equipment would be contained within a 384 square foot utility building and additional ground-based equipment would consist of a power generator and a fuel tank on concrete pads (Attachment B). The sides of the lattice tower would be 30 wide at thebase and taper to 30 inches at its top. The property, described as Tax Map 50/Parcel ID, contains approximately 2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas (Attachment C) and is currently under a contract with the conditions that the purchase would not be executed unless approval is granted for the special use permit. This site lies within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is designated as Rural Areas 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. Petition: The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) is a cooperative of the communications services for multiple public emergency agencies serving the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Airport. Due to the existence of several deficiencies that were identified in current public safety radiO systems, the ECC has contracted with Motorola for the development of a new 800 MHz emergency radio communications system to meet the current needs of all of those entities. Alt of the communications facilities would be tied together to impleme, nta regional communications system that is designed to allow the exchange of signals in a continuous loop. In order to protect the system against significant amounts of interference or failure when problems occur at a single facility site, the loop is intended to provide a certain amount of signal "redundancy". In accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows, for radio wave transmission and relay towers, this request is for a special use permit which would allow the construction of the final facility needed to complete the system. Background: In 1995, the County, City and University performed an analysis identifying several of the critical problems in the individualized radio systems being implemented by local emergency service agencies. Those problems include an incompatibility of the existing sysmms which prevents cross-communication between police, fire and emergency medical service agencies, unavailability of replacement parts for the maintenance of aging equipment, a limited number of frequencies for two and one-way radio communication, radio interference and less than 95% reliability in the system. In that same year, the Emergency Communications Center was also granted a five-year license for a twenty channel 800 MHz radio frequency range, providing forty frequencies for two-way communication. Prior to the expiration of that license, the FCC granted a one-time extension, which could be lost or shared with other perspective users if the proposed public safety/service system is not operational by September 15, 2002. Under the direction of the Management Board for the ECC and with the assistance of Radio Communication Consultants (RCC), the participating jurisdictions has analyzed the common need for an updated public safety and public service radio communications system to replace the systems that are currently in use (Attachment D). In order address those deficiencies in the current system RCC has recommended the implementation of a trunked 800 MHz system, which would allow inter-agency communications between emergency and service personnel in all of the jurisdictions represented by the Emergency Communications Center. The proposed 800 MHz system is intended to offer increased reliability, extended coverage throughout the region, greater availability of parts and service, the ability to handle multiple incidents with protection from co-channel interference, and support of digital communication applications. According to the applicant's request, the system was also designed to minimize the number of facility sites that are needed, while still meeting coverage requirements and maintaining an acceptable level of reliability. In response to concerns that have been expressed by the Piedmont Environmental Council and the public (Attachments D and E) regarding the appropriateness of the proposed location, the applicant had RCC investigate the feasibility of other sites as alternatives to Peter's Mountain. Information regarding the viability of those alternatives has been provided in the form of an executive summary and is provided as an attachment to this staff report. RCC's studies have identified that a combination of two sites, one at Piney Mountain and the other at Whitlock Mountain, may be able to serve a similar coverage area to that which would be served by a the full system with the Peter's Mountain site. However, due to the lack of signal redundancy in various areas, data provided by RCC indicates that those sites would have marginal benefits in the City of Charlottesville and the County's urban areas, when compared to the single Peter's Mountain site. The ECC's Management Board has determined that, if it utilized these alternative sites, the project's costs would increase by an estimated 2 to 3 million dollars. These additional costs would not be shard by the City or the University and has the potential of dissolving the partnership on the development of the multi-jurisdictional 800 MHz system. Additional issues that have not been fully accounted for in the analysis of alternative locations include the uncertainty of being able to acquire sites.that would work, and potential time constraints due to the approaching deadline for the expiration of the current FCC license that was issued for the system. 2 Planning and Zoning History: Although staff has identified no Planning or Zoning history on the subject parcel, the following items are identified as being related to this request: SP 00-083 ECC Emergency facility SP 00-084 Klockner Stadium Emergency Communication Facility SP 00-085 Fan Mountain Communication Facility SP 00-086 Buck's Elbow Emergency Communication Facility_ 00-088 Carter's Mountain Emergency Communication Facility At its March 11, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved five other emergency communicatiOn facilities, throughout various parts of the county. By functioning with those approved facilities, the current proposal would allow the construction of what has been identified as the final facility that is needed to complete the regional emergency communication system. SP 00-087 Peter's Mountain Emergency Communication Facility_ - A proposal was submitted for a similar facihty on an adjacent property, identified as Tax Map 50/Parcel lA. The proposal at this site was at first meant to provide the coverage objective that was intended for the portion of the system that coUld be served with the facility that is currentlY being proposed. However, the request was withdrawn prior to any Board of Supervisors action due to issues with the lease contract on that site. Character of the Area: The site is located within the nationally registered Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The proposed facility would be situated on a ridgeline, approximately 1,694 feet Above Sea Level (ASL), and near the top of Peter's Mountain, which peaks slightly above 1,800 feet ASL. All nearby properties are zone Rural Areas, and several of the properties east and west of the site are located within the Blue Run Agricultural Forestal District. The subject parcel was deforested and replanted in the past, and it is now mainly vegetated with a mixture of small pine trees and dense underbrush. A few taller deciduous trees are also scattered throughout the site. Along with the clearing that would be necessary for the installation of equipment within the 60 x 60- foot facility, additional grading will be required to allow construction of the access driveway to the site. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 1,450 feet south at an elevation of 1,630 feet ASL. There are no public roads located within 2,000 feet ofthe proposed facility site, and the nearest public road, Echo Valley Road (state Route 641), is located approximately one mile northwest of it. The facility would be accessed from an existing, paved private road (Peter's Mountain Road) which also serves an existing communications facility on property owned by American telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). The satellite dishes within the AT&T facility are located approximately 1,400 feet north of the subject parcel, and are the nearest structures to the proposed ECC facility site. 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff's review of this request for comphance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan is focused on the appropriateness of this request to allow a facility supporting a public use and the impacts that could result from its presence at the proposed location. The Community Facilities Plan establishes the County's goals and objectives for providing vital services at an adequate level throughout the community. Both the Open Space Plan and Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide staff with guidance for reviewing development proposals with regard for the County's natural, scenic and historic _resources, and for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future use. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is a component of the Comprehensive Plan provides very limited guidelines for the siting and review of facilities that are not specifically intended to provide personal wireless services. However, proposals for other types of wireless facilities, including those for public uses, are also encouraged to adhere to the pohcy to the extent possible (Page 4, Policy). Community Facilities Plan Because this proposal represents a use that would be established through public funding in order to support public services, staff's review is made with consideration for the Community Facilities. The introduction to the Community Facilities Plan states that the County's growth management goals have been established to, "Promote the efficient utilization of County resources through a combination of the following items: Designated growth areas that provide a variety of land uses, facilities, and services to support the County's future growth. Emphasis on the importance and priority of the four major elements that form the basis for the rural areas: (1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water supply protection; (3) efficient service delivery; and (4) conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources. Of these the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities s the highest priority." Staff has identified that the following recommendations set forth as objectives in achieving the purposes of the Community Facilities Plan are relevant to this request: The location of new facilitieS should be within County growth areas so as to support County land use policies. Outlying Growth Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as service center locations for the' Rural Areas. This objective provides direct support for many of the County's accepted growth management policies that are intended to reduce trends toward development within the Rural Areas. However, those concerns are mainly focused on the effects of increasing the availability of the services and amenities provided by community facilities such as schQols, libraries and parks by locating them in the Rural Areas. By setting the preference for providing the highest levels of these types of public services in the Growth Areas, this objective is intended to help the Rural Areas remain less attractive for higher levels of residential and commercial development. · Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety concerns, and provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population served. The provision of emergency services must be made throughout all parts of the County. Unlike other services that are provided with community facilities, the delivery of emergency services is reliant upon the ability of police, fire and emergency medical personnel to access various areas as efficiently as possible. The Community Facilities Plan establishes specific service objectives that are intended to address the'needs of police, and fire and rescue service personnel in carrying out emergency operations. Staff recognizes that several of those objectives are relevant to this request. For instance, each of those emergency agencies has set service objectives for achieving specific, average maximum response times to emergency calls. Other common emergency service objectives established in the Community Facilities Plan are directed at providing adequate facilities to support current and future staff, and upgrading equipment and facilities to accommodate the service needs of the growing community. · Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet service needs. The applicant's executive summary explains the need for the new emergency communications system by stating that the existing systems often experience transmission interference and various form of signal obstructions. Furthermore, the supporting facilities are difficult to maintain due to the lack of available parts and service for outdated equipment. Open Space Plan and Natural Resources and Cultural Assets: The Open Space Plan and the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (Chapter 2)provide staff with guidance for the protection of the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the preservation and management of those resources in order to protect the environment and future use. The Open Space Concept Map provides an inventory of critical resources and identifies the areas where those resources are present throughout the entire County. Identified Open Space resources that are present, on the subject parcel and could potential!y be affected by this application are the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and the Mountain Resource Area. Because those types of resources are recognized as valuable economic and aesthetic assets that help define the overall character of the County, staff's analysis gives consideration for the impact of the facility in its proposed location as well as from nearby properties and public roadways. The Southwest Mountains cover an expansive geographical area in the northeastern portion of the County, with a rather large number of surveyed historic sites and structures that are located between Monticello and Montpelier. The mountains are also characterized by the presence of several properties that have remained largely undisturbed and in a traditionally pastoral state. Because of those qualities, the Southwest Mountains and much of the areas surrounding them are part of a nationally registered historic district. Although the subject property itself has not been recognized for having any specific historic importance such as imPortant structures or archeological sites, the fact that it lies within the District establishes it as a part of a larger historic site. Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes the following objective for assisting in the protection of recognized Historic and Cultural Resources: Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings, structures and landscapes, site and districts which have historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Part IV of the Open Space Plan, entitled Protection Techniques, recognizes several of the mechanisms that can be used to protect open space resources; this includes, but is not hmited to, the implementation of conservation or open space easements, and Agricultural and Forestal Districts. One nearby property is currently being considered for purchase by the County under its Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) program. Several of the other the properties within thef Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District are currently held in conservation easements. Although the County of Albemarle is not a party to existing easements, the owner of these properties must agree to incorporate various provisions that are set by the controlling body of the easement for accepting and holding this type of negotiated agreement. This includes various restrictions on certain types and density levels of development. Some nearby properties, located east and west of the site, are also included as parts of the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District. The establishment of Agricultural and Forestal (AG/FOR) Districts places certain controls on the proximity of public utilities available to landowners agreeing to limit development for the purpose of protecting the agricultural and forestal uses of their properties. Despite the fact that it is in the vicinity of the Blue Run AG/FOR District, the subject parcel lies under separate ownership and is not subject to any of the agreements governing development within district. Furthermore, because none of the properties adjoining the site are located within that district; this proposal is not subject to an official review by the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee. However, the Committee did vote in support a of motion to request that the Board of Supervisors require the facility to be designed to have the least visual impact on the surrounding properties possible. The Open Space Plan recognizes that registration as a historic district is primarily an official recognition, which imposes no architectural controls or regulations. However, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic preservation Act, the applicant is required to submit an application for "cell tower review" with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Attachment F). This review will also provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, another federal agency, with a chance to comment on the possible visual and.physical impacts of wireless facilities upon historically important properties prior to the issuance of a license from the Federal Communications Commission. The proposed facility would be situated at a ground elevation of 1,694 feet and the Mountain Resource Area for Peter's Mountain begins at the 700-foot contour interval. Mountain Resource Areas are defined by designated contour lines and based generally on the location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact...A combination of the environmental and aesthetic benefits provided by undisturbed forests, and issues related to soil erOsion, surface water runoff and septic system contamination, are all identified concerns with development in mountainous areas. Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends application of several design standards that should be applied in order protect Mountain Resource Areas by minimizing the impacts of development. Staff has identified the following of those standards as being relevant to this special use permit application: Minimize clearing. Consider the impact of your clearing on others' vistas of the unspoiled natural terrain. Locate driveways to minimize grading, length and impact on critical slopes and trees. Consider "peek holes" in the vegetation and winter views rather than clearing for year-round views. Maintain the natural tree canopy. Because the 2-acre parcel proposed for this facility had been forested in recent years and replanted with pine trees that currently have heights averaging between 5 and 7 feet, staff notes that there are very few mature trees present at this site. A private road already exists to provide accesS to the subject parcel and there are no critical slopes on the site, so there is less concern for those problems that could arise from the disturbance of slopes than for the visual impact upon the scenic resources. Consider your impact on plant and animal habitat. Maintain natural landscape in large contiguous areas. Clearing for a dwelling creates edge habitat. Be prepared to coexist with deer and other wildlife. Properties that are located east and west of the subject parcel and existing road are heavily wooded with more extensive forested areas than the facility site and the developed portions of the AT&T properties. Because the facility would be fenced and unmanned, concerns for coexisting with wildlife that would be attracted to the edge habitat have been identified for this request. · Locate houses and structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy. Do not locate houses and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the horizon~ - Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline. The tower proposed to serve as the mounting structure for the antennas and microwave dishes proposed for this facility would be much taller that the average heights of the trees on the subject parcel. Because of the varying terrain, concerns with the possibility of skylighting (visibihty of structures in against open skies without background), and altering the continuity of the rid~eline are mainly a fimction of the distance points from which the structure would be viewed. Staff has recognized that it would be impossible to account for the visual impacts from every possible location from which Peter's Mountain is visible. Therefore, balloon tests were observed from the most strategic sites where stops could be made with the least concern for traffic conflicts and encroachment onto private properties. Design houses and structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the building site. Choose non,reflective colors and material. Choose earth tone colors rather than stark white. At the request of the Planning Commission and due to staff inquiries, the applicant has agreed to investigate alternatives to assist in mitigating the visual impact of the proposed facility. This includes various tower designs and colors that could be implemented if the facility were approved. Locate and shield exterior lighting to minimize its obtrusiveness on neighbors and the natural surrounding. Use full cutOff fixtures that are aimed doWnward. Use lighting that is adequate but not excessive for the proposed use. The applicant has stated the proposed 11 O-foot tower would not be required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations to be fitted with the safety beacons that are often seen on tall telecommunications towers. Furthermore, because these types of facilities do not have to be staffed, site lighting is not usually proposed. However, the general conditions of approval for wireless facilities authorize the use lights that are in compliance with the County's "Dark Skies" lighting regulations, set forth in Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. But, those lights can only be used during periods when maintenance is required to resolve service interruptions or power losses. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy: The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy does not apply directly to this proposal, but it does have a general statement about the desired applicability to public facilities. That statement encourages to these types of facilities to adhere to the policy to the extent possible. The guidelines set forth in the wireless policy are focused toward reducing the visual impacts that personal wireless communication facilities have on surrounding properties and roadways. The Policy recommends implementing a three-tiered approval system to address various criteria related to those potential impacts. The first tier sets a preference for the development of"stealth" facilities that can be completely concealed within existing structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that are designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that reduces their visibility. Tier Three wireless facilities are more generally identified' as those that do not fit within either of the first two tiers. Due to their design and siting, Tier Three facilities are likely to have more adverse visual impacts.- Considering the height and'design of the mounting structure, and the types of attachments that would be placed on it, the facility that is proposed in this request would represent a Tier Three facility if it were intended to support personal wireless services. With respect for the other relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Personal Wireless Facilities Policy has also identified various "Avoidance Areas", where the unwise siting of personal wireless facilities could result an adverse impact on important resources. This includes locations such as mountain resource areas, historic districts, and scenic highways. Concerns with the impacts on those items could be magnified when Tier Three facilities are sited within Avoidance Areas. Although Tier Three personal wireless facilities are not prohibited by the wireless policy or Zoning Ordinance, staff recognizes that they offer the least opportunity for mitigating the impacts of their presence upon the surrounding area. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request for its relationship to the regulations set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, Peter's Mountain is visible from Routes 640 and 641, and from Routes 20 and 231, which are both designated as Virginia Byways and Entrance' Corridors. Staff observed that a balloon being floated at the proposed height of the tower was only marginally visible from Routes 231 and 641 with the use of binoculars. Because those roads are located rather far from the site and at much lower elevations, the observation of balloon tests were not very representative of the possible visual impacts to properties located closer in proximity to the proposed facility site. Furthermore, much of those adjacent properties are wooded with varying topography. Lacking any additional comments from the Department Historic Resources, staff has not determined the degree to which the proposed facility would impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Therefore, information regarding full extent of the visual impacts upon adjacent property is inconclusive at this point. The road providing access to the proposed site already exists, and because the facility would be unmanned, it is staff's opinion that this proposal would not increase vehicular traffic or impose any other adverse impacts on traffic patterns within the area. Because the proposed facility would not require the disturbance of any portions of adjacent properties, which would remain in naturally wooded states. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities; and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources. Uses allowed by right are either residential, or those related to agriculture and forestal activities. Uses allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district are most often services related to those activities. Although this proposal would not promote agricultural and forestal activities, staff recognizes that presence of various types of utilities and wireless facilities in the Rural Areas is not uncommon. The nearest example of a facility that is located within the vicinity of the proposed site is the much larger AT&T facility that has been present at the peak of Peter's Mountain nearly 30 years. Several of the light beige, concrete structures that are located within facihty are visible from several miles away. In contrast, if the proposed tower is approved, the recommended conditions of that approval would require the tower and its attachments to be painted a non-reflective color. Because of its distance from public roads and accessible parts of surrounding private properties, _ staff review contains very hmited information regarding the extent of visual impacts that could result from the installation of the facility at this site. Prior to the issuance of a FCC license this proposal will be subject to "cell tower" review by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Because staff has not received any comments from the DHR, limited information has been provided to demonstrate the extent of any negative impacts that could arise from the placement of the proposed facility in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. However, approval of this proposal would not change the status of the Southwest Mountains as a historic district or the ability for any of the adjacent properties to qualify for inclusion in the Blue Run Agricultural Forestal District. and that such use will be in harmony With the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Sections 1.5 and 1.6. Section 1.4.3 states that one of the intents of the Ordinance is, "to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". Because of the probability of their increased visibility, wireless facilities that implement mounting structures that are taller than the existing tree canopy are not considered to contribute to the attractiveness of the community. However, the enhancement of emergency services, as proposed through the creation of the 800MHz communication system as a whole, could be seen as facilitating a more convenient and harmonious comtnunity through the promotion of in creased public safety. Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various use...; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." Staff recognizes that an approval allowing the establishment of a new.wireless facility supporting commercial service prc;viders at this location, and with a mounting structure at the prop6sed height, would be in direct conflict with several of the guidelines that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan's Personal Wireless Policy. However, because the wireless facility proposed with this request would not be used for the support of a non-commercial, public system other objectives for increasing the performance capabilities of community safety facilities must also be considered with this request. Staff has attempted to address these and other concerns with the 10 Comprehensive Plan analysis provided in this. staff report. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses on any other property within the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare. The main purpose of the 800MHz public radio communications system, of which the proposed facility would be a pan, is to increase the level of communication between emergency service providers in the event of emergencies. Therefore, a facility supporting those agencies charged with preserving health and monitoring public safety throughout the County directly supportive of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 5.1.12 of the Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures, provided that the proposed utility "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties o.r the development of the same." With respect to the concern for the general welfare, staff has attempted to address the concern for possible impacts on neighboring properties throughout this staff report and in the recommended conditions. With regard for additional the concerns for public health, staff has determined that there are no dwellings or places of employment within the immediate area of the facility. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to meet additional health and environmental guidelines, set by the FCC .for radio frequency emissions, in order to the order to operate the proposed facility. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: This proposal is for the purpose of improving public safety. The proposed fac!lity offers the most technically desirable location to complete the targeted coverage of the system, as a whole, and meet the emergency communication needs of the County, City and University within acceptable cost parameters. The facility would not restrict.any of permitted uses or impose any clearing or other physical disturbance upon adjacent properties. The applicant has agreed to investigate alternate design options and color schemes that may help to mitigate visual impacts of the tower. The tower would not have to be lighted under Federal Aviation Administration standards. Staffhas identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: The site of the proposed facility is located on a ridgeline near the peak of Peter's Mountain, which is discouraged in the Mountain Resource Area. The facility would be located within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, which is a nationally registered historic site. 11 3. The proposed tower would be taller than the surrounding tree canopy. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Test balloons flown at the proposed height of the tower were only visible from the public roads in the area with binoculars. The visibility from other properties is inconclusive based on field observations of the test balloons. ' This request is subject to the "Cell Tower" review and comment, but not the approval of the Department of Historic Resources and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. No specific archeological sites or historic structures have been identified on this site. The site would be located near compound for an existing AT&T communications facility. Several nearby properties are held in conservation easements and/or are part of the Blue Run Agficultural/Forestal District. Two alternative sites have been identified as technically possible, but have not yet been investigated fully for their availability and coverage differences. The increased cost of developing the facility at these alternative sites would not be shard by the City and University and could result' in the dissolution of the efforts toward establishing the multi-jurisdictional system. This proposal would represent a Tier Three facility if it were proposed for personal wireless services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For a project of a unique nature such as this, the obvious public safety benefits of the emergency communication system which Peter's Mountain will complete have to be balanced against the potential impacts the visibility of this facility will have on valued county resources. With the feasibility Of any alternative facility location(s) that would complete the system not fully known but certain to be of significantly more cost based on information provided by the ECC Management Board, evaluation of this proposal focuses on whether it is acceptable at this location considerin, g all factors, and, if so, what conditions are necessary to assure the least impacts possible. Based on known factors,.staffbelieves that this proposal represents the best location to complete the emergency communication system. However, without the input of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, it is very difficult for staff to conclusively assess the impact of this proposal on the specific site and the rest of the 12 properties within Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit with conditions that would require the submittal of additional information from those two agencies regarding the potential impact upon the District. Recommended conditions of approval: Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. Should the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historic properti~, based on findings of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell tower review, the Emergency Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the Planning Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means of mitigation. Antennas. dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall be limited to those that are necessary for establishing the public services radio system. This facility shall never be used for the provision personal wireless communications services. The top of the tower, shall never exceed 110 feet tall from the ground level, or 1,804 feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). Only the two proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend located above the top of the tower. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the top of the tower. o The-facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be painted a non-reflective color that reduces its contrast with the sky; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. All ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's Mountain Site Plan and Elevation. o No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the tower, except as provided herein: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. b. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. c. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 13 Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a ce~ified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred- foot buffer, after the installation of the sUbject facility. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the f'mal revisions of the construction plans. ATTACHMENTS: B_ C- D- E- F- Application, Executive Summary and related Information Site Information and Construction Drawings for Existing Facility Tax Map and Topography Correspondence From PEC Staff Public Correspondence Information and Blank Application for Section 106 "Cell Tower" Review 14 Albemarle -:.. [ OFIflCE USE ONLY Application for Special Use Permit e. al ATTACHMENT A ]*ZoningDistrict'~L '' :-' 'ZoningordinanceSection'numberrequested __'_§'~;Z~., ~Z~_:...,.~ .:. 1_ [ (*staff will aSsist jou with these items) - - Number of ad. res.to be COvered by Special Use Permit at~ ~ Ils this.= ame. ndment:to_ a~ng Spe~al.U.~e Permit? El Yes~o I Are you. sub~tting a sR~.~e~!bpment plan With this application? IAddmss':~Z2e~'T~¥"-~:~l> .... :- "'" "' .... , ' owner of land (n~ listed in the County's records):. ~.~ ~rWAe..~erh A~re_gl~d4T' · ~?- ~': - ~ ~-.~ '"~ :- -~; ~ ~..~)' ,'~:~ :'_ :'.~'::~:~ ~.3. '" : : - :;;~' ' :- ~-~- ' :-','( '~u,,,~:::-~ ~' ~, 7?;'t'L,,~:'!~;-~ >2. Address'~ "::~'~'[:"-::':" :'" .... '''':~' "'~' ~: :~- ':-'f ~''' ' '''~'''':: :<:: ' '"'" :" City " 2.... i ' Da~ime Ph~e'(' '::'" ') F= g E-m~l ...... " Applicant CC, tho is the coast person representing? Who is requesting thc special use?): EbX~:R~em.~-.~. Address 9-~ff~'Lxt¥'~e~h City {~~'e~: Daytime Phone (q~q: i ctqts-lt~ - . '. Fax #04~q~)q'lt- iqt,,q --'E-mail Tax map and Parcel'¥Ri ~:> :' 'i~necc=L ~ Physical Address (if assigned) ' Does the ~'(~h'ei:i}5i~ thfs"i~:r~-~¥-B/b~/h (0r'ha¢e an~' ~wnership interest in) an~ ab~&tiii~ pr6p~rt~? 'If yes;~iai~iist'' OFFICE USE ONLY ~"~'~' '~ 0g O Special Use Permits: ~ 0 Variances: DatePaid Check# . Receipt# 'B~}:~:"5~::" El ZMAs and Proffers: ' ' :' ~' ~':' O Letter of Authorization OYes ONo _ Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? 401 Mclntire Road -:- Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:. Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax: 972-4126 /.~" Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for rises as-provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding bY the board of supervisors~ that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by fight in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their' analysis of your request. Please complete this form and Provide additional information which will assist the County in ~ts mwew of your request.' If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. . -. .. . ,, ...... What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?~'~'~' AI;~I~ ~J~ .... i. - _ ~ - . .-.. ...... · t-~,~a:~cl~T~ v,~m~.x.'--- "-'-" '"" How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property ? ' "---' " How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? -' How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the-Zoning Ordinance?. How is thc use in harmony with thc uses permitted by right in the district? n What additional regulations provided in Secti0h 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the'community? '' 'lb .... - ...... - ATTACHMENT A Describe your-~equest in d&aii'and include ail pertinent information such as the numbers -of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: :sr~t ATTACI-IMENTS REQUIRED. provide two(2) copies of each: ......... - ' '. .,~- · .... · Recorded plat or boundary, survey of the property requested for-the rezoning. If there is ..~: .:......' ' - ~ . no recorded plat or boundary sU~ey, please provide legal description of the property-and .. , ' - 7 "?.~¢¢~"~.. ~.:)k(¥.'~-'. ~,-. :-~ ;- "~ 5"'".~' 5-'. '.' '-- .- - . - .... ' .......... :... .' '. :.; Note/'; :: Iflyou 'are reque~/n'g'"~-SpeciaI use permitOnly for a portion of the property, it - ~ '_.<,.-- -'-.: needs to be described or delineated on a co~y of the Pla~ Or surVeYed drawing. _ [~ 2. .. Ownership.. information - If ownership of the property is in the name. of any type ~of legal entity or organization-including, but-' not limited to, the name of a corporation, parthership ._.-,"or association, opm the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable ::- '._th&.~--.C?nty' must .be sul~itgd ~ertifying that the PerS0h signing b~l'ow has the' - to aoso.. -: ':: ' ' ..... :'.-:'--:::':-5':::<:'":" .... If the' apl~Iicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to ffi;'C0t~i¢: submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. : :-:: --:~ ~_ .?-...--- - ..... :: ............. :- ..,:.; '-,-~:'.:~-,: .... : - - '- ' ':--:?:-¢".'-'-'- V' :-7.- - '-'7. .... If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to'the County must be : submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. ' OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. 4. Additional Information, if any. '-:' ' ';.:;'i~ ' :'.~' ,- .- I hereby certify thai' i' b~n ~e subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the Own~r in' Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory /7 ATTACHMENT A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Purchase of Property from Eric Frost SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize the purchase of 2-acre parcel located on Peter's Mt, in connection with the 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System ...._. '~ STAFF CONTACT{S}': Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Foley, Trank AGENDA DATE: September 19, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: The Emergency Communications Center is in the final stages of negotiating the acquisition of the 800 MHz Public Safety Radio system. All tower sites have been acquired by lease or other agreement, with the exception of the Peter's Mt. and Carter's Mt. sites (the Carter's Mt. site is addressed in a separate executive summary). Staff has negotiated a'purchase agreement With the property owner of a 2-acre parcel on Peter's Mt. that has been identified as a suitable location for the radio commuhications tower and related .equipment at that site. The purchase price is $90,000 and represents a fair and reasonable pdce for the property. Va. Code § 15.2-1800 authorizes the County to purchase the property for this purpose. In acquiring this site, the County is acting at the request and on behalf of the Emergency Communications Center and its members, including the City of Charlottesville and University of Vir§ inia. RECOMMENDATION.: Staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase of the Frost property and authorize the County Executive to execute the necessary documents to finalize the purchase. 09-14-01 AIl:5? IN ATTACHMENTA AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (the "Agreement") made this day of ,2001 by and between ERIC FROST, in his individual capacity and as CUSTODIAN for ALISON E. FROST and ELIOT ?. FROST under the Virginia Uniform Transfer to Minors Act, as tenants in common with each owning a one-third (1/3) undivided interest (hereinafter the "Seller") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "Buyer"). 1. Sale and Description of ProperW. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Property"), and described as follows: .All that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the Rivanna Magisterial District, north of State Route 640 on Petefs Mountain and on the south side of a trip oftand and fight of way, 65 feet wide, containing 2.00 acres, more or less, identified as Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 50-1D, more particularly described as Lot 6 on the plat of survey by Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. dated Mary 22, 1998 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1712, page 662. T'nis conveyance also includes a nonexclusive fight of way and right to use a road across the aforesaid 65' wide stop of land as shown on the aforementioned survey, including the remaining portion of said road running over the lands of others to State Route 640 as reserved in a deed dated January, 21, 1963, recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 386, page I42. Being the same property conveyed to Eric Frost in his individual capacity and as Custodian for Alison E. Frost and Eliot P. Frost under the Virginia Uniform Transfer to Minors Act, as tenants in common with each owning a one-third (1/3) undivided interest, by deed of gift of George J. Grotheer and Selma N. Grotheer, dated August 3, 199.9, recorded in the Clerk's Office oft_he Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1866, page 450. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property is Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) and shall be paid by Buyer to Seller by cash, in the form of a certified or local cashier's check, at closing. Seller represents that the purchase price to be paid by Buyer represents the /? ATTAcI-I~NT A appraised value of the Property as determined by a licensed real estate appraiser, and agrees to provide a-copy of the appraisal at Buyer's request prior to closing. 3. Conveyance. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by appropriate deed containing general warranty of title, which title shall be good, marketable and insurable, flee and clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants and restrictions of record that do not adversely affect marketability and insurability of title, that do not adversely affect Buyer's intended uses of the Property and that are approved by Buyer prior to closing. In the event Buyer's attorney finds title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any defect within (sixty) 60 days of notice thereof to them, this Agreement may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be refi.tnded. 4. Costs and Expenses. Seller shall pay Seller's recording tax applicable to the transfer of the property to the Buyer, its share of the current real estate taxes and its own attorney's fees. Buyer shall pay its own attorney's fees, irs prorata share of the current year's real estate taxes when due and payable, cost of title insurance, survey, subdivision and deed preparation and ail recording costs (unless exempt) other than the Seller's deed tax. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection with this purchase, including without limitation title examination, insurance premiums, recording costs and fees of Buyer's attorney, shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes, assessments, interest, rent, and escrow deposits, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of Settlement and paid by Seller. Buyer agrees to pa,v any re [lback taxation assessed against the Property. ATTACHMENT A 5. Closina. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's Office on or before April 30, 2002 (or earlier if Buyer and Seller agree), or as soon thereafter as title can be examined, and papers prepared. 6. Right of Entry. Bnyer, its emPloyees, representatives, agents and assig, s, shall have the right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for purposes of engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, soil borings and other necessary site investigation, So long.as such studies do not result in a change in the character or topography of the Property. Buyer agrees to assume full responsibility for its actions or those of it~' employees, representatives, agents and assigns resulting from such entry, and shall pay all costs associated with such entry and any services obtained by it in the course of such site investigation. In addition, to the extent permitted by law, Buyer agrees to indemnify and hold Seller harmless for all claims, liabilities or damages arising from such entry and any services performed on Buyer's behalf during the course of such entry. 7. Risk of Loss. Ail risk ofloss or .damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other causes are assumed by, and shall be borne by the Seller until closing. In the event of any material loss, destruction or damage to the Property by reason of fire, windstorm, casualty or other causes prior to Closing which delays Closing, Buyer shall have the right to void this Agreement. 8. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Proper~f will be in substantially the same condition at Closing as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement. 9. Construction. Benefit and Effect. This Agr, eement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all the parties. 3 ATTACHMENT A 10. Agreement Survives Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by' Buyer and Seller that time is of the essence of this Agreement, and that all agreements, promises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, agents, successo .rs and assigns of the parties hereto. 11. Purchase Contingencies. Supervisors of the County. of Albemarle, This Agreement is subject to approval by the Board of Virginia. In addition, this Agreement is subject to County approval of a special use permit, approval by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and approval by the Federal Communications Commission o-~ a license to operate an 800MHz radio communications tower and retated facilities at the Property. Buyer reserves the right to waive any or all of these contingencies, with the exception of approval by the Board of Supervisors. In the event that Buyer is unable to secure any or all of the approvals noted above, Buyer shall notify. Seller in writing and this Agreement shall be deemed cancelled, and of no effect. In the event of cancellation, Seller shall refund the Purchase Price under section 2 of this Agreement in full within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of written notice by Buyer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parries have signed this Agreement as of the day first above written. SELLER: ERIC FROST ERIC FROST AS CUSTODIAN FOR ALISON E. FROST ERIC FROST AS CUSTODIAN FOR ELIOT P. FROST ATTACHMENT A BUYER: Approval as to form: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE County Attorney's Office STATE/DISTRICT OF CITY/COUNTY OF .... to-wit: day of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged this Eric Frost in his individual, capacity and in his capacity as Custodian for Alison E. Frost and Eliot P. Frost under the Virginia Uniform Transfer to Minor Act, Seller. My commission expires: .,2001 by COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. to-wit: The foregoing insmnment was acknowledged this Notary Public day'of ,2001 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive of the County of Albemarle County., Virginia, Buyer. My commission expires: Notary Public MAT/realestate. gert/Frost. PetersMt. purchaseagl .doc (3, ATTACHMENT A !.' ........ ::¥','r,': . ATTACHMENT A _,08 ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 Mltz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary BACKGROUND/INFORMATION In 1995, the County, City and University jointly contracted for a radio communications study to examine Public Safety and Public Service independent radio commumcattons systems currently ~n use and develop a multt-ag cy radio communications plan. Over the past five years, members of County, City and University stafl.~ under the direction of the ECC Management Board, and through the assistance of radio communications consultants and citizen volunt~eers have analyzed the entities joint needs for public safety and public service radio communications. PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT RAI)IO SYSTEM Many d~es and critical shortcorrfi-n~dentified in the existing conventional analog radio systems, particularly the public safety radio systems. The most critical of those were: Lack of Interooerability · Interoperability is the ability of Public Safety and Public Service personnel to communicate by radio with staff from other agencies, on demand and in real time. In the present independent/individualized radio systems (i.e.; VHF & UI-IF) - police, fire and EMS agencies are unable' to communicate via radio with each other during day-to-day, mutual aid, ta.qk force, or emergency operations. The same is tree between Public Safety and Public Service. 75-80% of current radio equipment is older than the normal useful life · · Radio equipment manufacturers are generally, legally bound to provide parts for seven (7) years after initial production for subscriber units (mobile/portable radios) and ten (10) year for infrastructure equipment (transmitters/receivers). · The average age of present radio system infrastructure is 15 years. · The average age of radio equipment in the present ECC is 15 years. Inadequate in-street radio coverage and in-building (radio signal) penetration · Present independent public safety radio systems do not provide 95% in-street portable coverage reliabili .ty or 95% in-building portable coverage reliability for public safety responders. This results in inadequate commumcation and creates a safety issue for emergency responder personnel. Inadequate radio channel capacitv for present public safety radio systems · Radio frequencies determine the number of channels that are available for one or two way communications. These frequencies are a finite natural resource, which cannot be created or discovered. · The inability to acquire these scarce frequencies results in congestion and interference, limiting the ability of public safety personnel to commumcate. · Present City and County Fire Depmeanents operate on only two one way channels in the low band frequency. This does not allow sufficient channels for multiple operations. Present systems experience daily radio interference · VHF and UHF bands do not have sufficient co-channel interference protection- - Not enough frequencies are available for public safety use, and even less are available for interoperability purposes. · The only frequency band with relatively clean (free of interference) frequencies is 800 MHz. · Public safety is moving to the 800 MHz frequency band for protection from co-channel interference and because of the availability of slow growth options (see Attachment A for list of 800 MI4_z Radio Systems currently planned or in use in Virginia). 6. Systems Unreliable · Unable to obtain parts (Used parts utilized to maintain systems). · No system backup (Poor redundancy). Page 1 of 10 C>Q~ ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary - continued Based on a thorough review of the information presented it was the consultant's belief that the only radio system that could effectively address the deficiencies and objectives identified in the radio communications study would be an 800 MHz Analog/Digital~Simulcast Trunked Radio System. The Emergency Services Providers Advisory Committee (ESPAC) concurred with this recommendation after conducting its own subsequent review of the consultant's study, and other additional radio communications informatiom RADIO FRE'QUENCHgS Application was made to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1995 for a st]fficient number of frequenciea, ia, the 800 MHz radio frequ~ to upgrade and develop a public safety/public service radio communications system for the County, City and University. A radio license for twenty c _h~mnels (forty frequencies to allow two-way communications) was obtained from the FCC on September I5, 1995, ua~ler a five-year slow . growth plan. Most of these frequencies were extremely limited in their availability and wele secured at a time when the window of opportunity presented itself. This window has now closed and similar frequencies are not available. The 800 MHz frequencies originally licensed were primarily from the general pool and were specifically targeted because they had less restriction on their use and would allow the development of a radio system infrastructure utilizing less tower sites. The use of frequencies from other public safety radio communications plans or pools (i.e.: police/fire/cms VI-IF Lo Band/High Band service, UHF public safety, NPSPAC 800 MHz) generally have more restriction on the~ use, requiring more tower sites and equipment resulting in higher infrastructure costs. Because our 800 MHz license was scheduled to expire on September 15, 2000, and there was a high probability our radio frequencies could be forfeited, assigned to other entities, or even auctioned by the FCC it was agreed additional radio consultant services should be obtained to assist with additional system design rewew and (FCC) regulatory matters. In M~rch of this year RCC Consultants, Inc. was hired and tanked to assist with the following responsibilities: 1. Federal Communications Commission Frequency and Regulatory Coordinatiom 2. Site Acquisition; 3. Technical Proposal Revievr, and 4. Contract Negotiation Assistance. With the assistance of RCC Consultants, Inc. our 800 MHz license has been successfully renewed with the ' following FCC implementation requirements: 1. The regional 800 MHz Radio System must be "fully constructed and operational" by September 15, 2002. 2. The FCC has granted "a one-time extension" that extends the original 5-year (September 15, 2000) construction schedule by only two additional years to September 15, 2002. Note: It will take approximately eighteen months to construct the radio system. If we fail to meet these requirements the region risks losing or being forced to share frequencies, which will not eliminate the problems in our current system. PROPOSED SYSTEM The proposed system is an 800 MHz Analog/Digital (20) Channel Simuicast Trunked Radio System (see Attachment B for system description) that will be capable of serving the needs of the City, County, and University public safety and public service agencies. The new system is designed to enhance public safety and provide a high quality, reliable communications service with an infrastructure life cycle for a minimum of 15 years. Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary - continued Analog/Digital Technology The design of this system will allow the use of both analog and digital mobile/portable handheld radios. While analog radios are included to help minimize the cost of subscriber equipment to be purchased by Public Service users, digital technology offers several distinct advantages and features that are not provided by an analog system. Implementation of a digital system will provide: 1. The ability' to send messages in a format that takes up less space in the frequency bandwidth compared with . analo~ allowing more information robe sent over the same bandwidth without interference. Digital transmissions of higher quality throughout a given base station transmitter range compared to analo~ where the closer the analog receiver is to the transmitter, the better the radio signal quality will be. As the . analog receiver moves farther away, the si~m~al grad~mlly deteriorates, becoming weak, scratchy and even0j_ally can no longer be understood. 3. A digital signal will be stronger and of a higher quality within the same coverage area compared to an analog signal. 4. With additional technology, the digi'tal receiver will likely be able to hear 100% of the message at 100% quality within the coverage area of the transmitter. 5. Digital transmissions are secure and difficult to monitor providing a level of security not currently experienced in our present radio systems. 6. Digital infrastructure will allow Public Safety to utilize present available digital technology and will provide - a fOundation and the capacity to move forward and migrate with developing digital technologies (ex: NCIC 2000, Mobile Data & Photo Imaging). Infrastm~ (Tower Sites) A competitive negotiation process (RFP) was initiated and is described in attachment C. The RFP specified the development and implementation of a radio system infrastructure that would incorporate the minimum number of tower sites possible while meeting the coverage requirements specified. These criteria were established in an effort to keep the cost of this radio system as low as possible and to be sensitive to Albemarle County tower policies. The proposal submitted by Motorola on April 30, 1999 has received several modifications from the original radio system infrastructure design. As a result the 800 MHz Regional Radio System now consists of the following system design/site configuration. Fan Mountain · Bucks Elbow · Peters Mountain · Carters Mountain · ECC · Kl6ckner Stadium Special use permit applications were submitted to the County of Albemarle for these towers on December 18, 2000. The .planning review process will take ninety (90) to onehundred and twenty (120) days. SYSTEM COST Motomla's proposed base cost (Design Price) of the radio system for the Couiaty, City, University and the Airport Authority is $13,565,898. This includes the radio equipment required for the infrastructure (tower sites, ECC. and associated equipment), subscriber units (mobiles and individual portable units), and accessories and installation costs. In comparison had this system been designed as an analog system only, loosing the above- Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simuicast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary - continued mentioned benefits, the cost difference would be approximately $2 million (15%). The Emergency Communications Center (ECC/9-1-1) Management Board has.agreed to a formula to share in the cost of the infrastructure based on the total numbeg of public safety, mobile, portable, and desktop units utilized by the County, City, UniverSity, and Airport Authority (see Attachmem D), What.this cost does not reflect would be the cost for any specific in-building antenna solutions that may be required for system coverage inside specifically identified buildings as a result of system coverage testing. Motorola's proposed cost for the 60 buildings (City, UniverSity & County) identified in the RFP was $1.9 million. It was the consultant's recommendation that this reqmrement be suspended until Field Testing and System Acceptance procedures are conducted to determine the true need, ff any, for ~nilding coverage. The co~s~l~n~ates these costs may more reali.qtically be 25-35% ($474,000- $665,000) of the cost proposed by Motorola should in-building solutions be desired or required. (Note: The method of sharing all or part of these costs has not been determined at this time since they have not been incurred yet.) Also.not included in Motorola' s proposed base cost is approximately $65,000 in estimated costs for site work that will need to be performed at the tower sites located at Fan Mountain, Bucks Mountain a~nd Klockner-Stadium, This is work that is required but Motorola was not asked to provide a cost proposal. Th6 ESPAC Radio Committee believed it would be more cost effective to contract these services directly. Finally, one other cost not reflected in the base proposal price is $110,747 for a logging recorder system for radio voiCe traffic at the new ECC. Although Motorola included this priCe in their propbsal it was proposed as requested as an optional cost. This gives the ECC the flexibility to compare Motorola's priCe to other procurement options. It is important to note here that the infrastrucvare cost shares are based on the allocation of the number of Public Safety subscriber units being purchased initially for this system. The County, City, University and Airport will be able to add their Public Service providers or additional Public Safety subscriber units to the radio system at a later time for Only the cost of the added number of subscriber units. However, other service providerS (ex: independent authorities) not sharing in the imtial radio system infiastmcture cost and who wish to become users of the ~stem at a later date will be required to pay some form of compensation and ultimately share in the infrastructure costs. This would be in addition to their subscriber unit costs. The Request for Proposal specified that pricing of the final, system must be valid through the date of final acceptance and that the entities may purchase or lease additional eqmpment at the proposal price until date of final acceptance. After this time a five year extension of pricing with an annual adjustment (upwards or downwards, depending on most favored customer sUtos and the market price for equipment) for additional equipment is desired. Motorola took partial exceptmn to this requirement which must be resolved as part of contract negotiation. FinanCe committee representatives for each of the entities and ECC have reviewed alternatives for the financing of this project. After a thorough review of options the finance committee feels the special finance program (Interest Rate: 5.53%) offered through Motorola Credit Corporation is the best option available for the financing of the radio system infrastructure (10 years) and system maintenance costs (5 years pre-paid). The overall cost of this project is $18,851,181 when you include the base cost, maintenanCe cost and finance costs together. The chart below identifies each participating entities share of this cost. A spreadsheet prepared by Melvin Breeden. Albemarle County Finance Director, details the financing program and payment milestones and is attached for additional information (see Attachment E). Entities Base Cost Maintenance Cost Finance Cost I Total Albemarle $6,902,200 $1,079,464 $1,600,703 [ $9,582,367 Charlottesville $4,195,942 $ 665,219 $ 986,432 $5,847,593 Universi~ $2.046,819 $ 319,944 $ 474,434 ~ $2,841,197 Airport $ 420,937 $ 64,074 $ 95,013 $ 580,024 Total $13,565,898 $2,128,701 $3,156,582 $18,851,!81 In addition to the capital costs of the new system, some tower sites not owned by. the entities will have annual land lease and road maintenance costs estimated to be $60.000: AlthoUgh it appears several of the sites may not incur Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 MBz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary - continued annual rental or maintenance costs, a final determination has not been completed at this time due to ongoing negotiations. Additionally, the cost for electric service, fuel tank rental and. fuel for the generators at these sites will be approximately $15,000 annually, Combined, these annual coats will [ye $75~000, and will need to be incorporated into the annual ECC operating budget: The land lease costs should be planned for the fiscal year be~nning July I, 2001, and the electric and .fuel tank service costs should be planned for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002. Some of these costs are currently being paid from agencies existing budgets for these sermces at the current radio tower sites. SYSTEI~ MAINTENANCE '"~ TWo options were considered. One option was to pre-pay 3 to 5 years of maintenance costs and incorporate this cost in the radio system finance package. Another option was to pay maintenance costs annually through the ECC operational'budget. The original proposed cost for maintenance of the infrastructure was $2,504,354 for years 2- 6 after warranty. However, if we chose to .pre-pay these costs Motorola would provide a.lump sum discount of $375,653 thereby reducing the total maintenance costs to $2,128,701 for years 2-6. This mount would also be financed based on the 5.53% interest rate. In consideration of these savings it is r~commended by the f'mance committee that the five years of annual maintenance costs be pre-paid and financed through the same special finance program offered by Motorola which was discussed previously in the system cost section. The cost for mmmenance of subscriber units will be approximately $7.50 per unit/per month ff a subscriber maintenance program is desired. This cost will be inctirred and budgeted by each entity through their annual operational maintenance budgets after expiration of the first year warranty. The ECC believes any administrative functions required as a result of the new radio system can be accomplished with existing personnel. No additional on-going personnel costs of the system are anticipated at this time. Construction of the infrastructure (tower sites) and installation of equipment will take 18 months from date of contract signing. The first year warranty will begin once the system has been fully tested and accepted. This will also be approximately eighteen months after the contract has been signed. BENEFIT TO TItE PUBLIC The proposed system is designed to address a crfical shortcoming in the region's current emergency. communications system. This shortcoming not only results in the inefficiency of regional operations, but seriously hinders the provision of critical emergency services to our ciuzeus. Some of the benefits this system will provide to our citizens include: Provides enhanced radio communications coverage reliability (in-building/in-street) in the County., City and University through use of microwave (wireless) technology rather than wire-line technology. o System is more secure and is not vulnerable to loss of coverage or service as a result of wire-tine connections being severed by construction accidents or motor vehicle accidents. · Provides a stand-alone communications system.available to Public Safety/Public Service agencies during disasters, local emergencies and major events and is not dependent on commercial entities. o Commercial Service Providers do not provide dedicated channels for Public Safety use or provide Public Safety with priority clearance for use of their system during disasters and emergencies (IE; Tropical Storms, Tornadoes, News Breaking Events, etc.). · Provides interoperability (the capability of different Public Safe .ty and Public Service agencies to communicate with each other on a daily basis as well as in times of emergencies, disasters and major events from anywhere within the system coverage). o Several years ago there was a drowning incident in the County where a young child had fallen into an unattemied swimming pool. 9-1-1 ,was called and EMS, Fire and Police units were dispatched. A fire Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Regional Public Safety 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Executive Summary - continued unit was first to reach the scene and given the seriousness of the situation initiated a transport to the hospital in a fire truck. The fire truck planned to meet the responding EMS unit to transfer the child for final h-ans~rt to the hospital since the fire track was not equipped withlcritical life saving equipment. Unfommately, because of our current radio system, the Fire and EMS units could not commumcate 'directly with each other and had proceeded beyond each other on different routes to the call, thereby delaying the time to meet and transfer the child. This loss of valuable time was not the fault of the ~,,.r, esponders, but resulted fr~o system and its lack of radio communication interoperability capabilities. · System capable of handling multiple incidents and provides sufficient co-channel interference protection. Current Fire and EMS radio communications will not support multiple channel operations which allow for the necessary segmenting of radio traffic to different emergency ificidents occumng simultaneously (IE: Structure Fires, Mass Casualty Incidents, Hazardous Materials Incidents, etc.). · Improved communications coverage over present independent systems, which in turn improves response by Public Safety and Pubhc Service Agencies throughout the County, City and University. The current radio svstem has many dead spots in its coverage.for the transmit and receipt ofemergencw. radio communications. Especially for Fire and EMS responders when attempting to use their portable radios in the field while working an incident. Aim, because of the heavy co-channel interference the responder is unable at times to communicate with the ECC or Fire Communications creating responder and citizen safety situations. Talk group assignments can be added or reconfigured to meet emergency communication needs. This flexibility insures emergency responder and service personnel have the capability to provide better and efficient customer service in times of urgency. When an emergency situation or event occurs, such as past incidents like the Sugar Hollow Dam flood. the fire and evacuation of 300 elderly patients at the Piedmont Health Care Facility, or the remnants of a hurricane or tropical storm, the 800 MHz radio system will have the capability of reconfiguring or creating new talks groups to allow for the provasion of radio communications (Interoperability) between both Public Safety and Public Service personnel responding to an emergency. The current radio system is not capable of performing these features. Keeps pace with present and future radio communications technology, especially digital technology. Public Safety Communications is mowng to the 800 MHz Band (see attachment A) for protection from m-channel interference and because manufacturers are placing a heavy emphasis on the research and development of this technology. In addition, serious limitations have been placed on the availability of frequency spectrum. Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Attachment A 800 MHz Radio Systems (Active or Planned) in the Commonwealth of Virginia 1. City of Alexandria-A/D 2. Amherst County-A 3. Arlington County-A (plan to convert m digital next 2-3 years) 4. City of Bedford-A 5. Bedford County-A 6. Town of Blacksburg-A (Procurement Phase) 7 City. of Chesapeake-D (Contract Negotiation) 8. Chesterfield County-D (Upgrade/Installation Phase) 9. City of Colonial Heights-D (Installation Phase) 10. Town of Culpeper-A (Contract Negotiation) 11. Culpeper County-A (Contract Negotiation) 12. Dulles Airport (MWAA)-D 13. City of Fairfax-D 14. Fairfax County (Installation Phase)-D 15_ City of Falls Church-A 16. Fauqier County-A/D (Procurement Process) 17. City of Fredericksburg-A 18. City of Hampton-A 19. City. of Hemdon-D 20. Hanover Countv-A 21. Henrico County-D 22. City of Hopewell-D 23. James City County-D (Active Procurement Phase) 24. Loundon County-D (Installation Phase) 25. City of Lynchburg-A KEY: A=Analoe D=Dieital .32 ATTACHMENT A Attachment A - continued 800 MHz Radio Systems (Active or Planned) in the Commonwealth of Virginia 26. City of Manassas / Manassas Park-D 27. National Airport (MWAA)-D 28. City of Newport News-MD 29. City of Norfolk-A 30. City of Portsmouth-A 31. Prince George County-D 32. Prince William County-D (Signed Contract 12/99- Installation Phase) 33. City of Richmond-D (Installation Ph~e) 34. Richmond International Airport-D 35. City of Roanoke-A 36. County of Roanoke-A 37. Spotsylvania County-A 38. City of Suffolk-A 39. Sussex County-D (Recently Obtained Licenses) 40. City of Vienna-D 41. City of Virginia Beach-D (Upgrade/Installation Phase) 42. Virginia Power-A (North Anna/Surry Nuclear Plants) 43. The College of William & Marv-A 44. City of Williamsburg-A 45. York County-D (Application Process ) KEY: A=Analo~ D=Dimtal 3_3 ATTACHMENT A Attachment B 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System Description The technology utilized in a trunked radio system is similar to that used in a tmnked telephone ~stem in which the system basically allows the shared use of available access lines instead of each individual station being assigned its own unique line. Key features and benefits of the 800 MHz simulcast tmnked radio .system are: · All County, City and University users will be on a single common infrastructure. · The automatic time-sharing of a fi:~ed number of radio channels over a large number of users using computer controlled channel assignment resulting in better channel efficiency (allows more users per channel). · Improved inter-agency and intra-agency communications. · Available to any user providing intemgency communications through talk groups. _- Each radio owned by each agency is programmed for a~ to talk groups designated or assigned by their agency, plus some or all of the entire "common" talk groups. · We no longer think in terms of "channels." Instead we think in terms 0f"talk paths." (More than 2000 talk paths are available for assignment/150-200 talk groups) · In reality, the radios are remote computers. · Provides good interference isolation, coverage and audio quality. · Enhanced operational and signaling features~ · Push-to-talk (PTD identification. Priority emergency signaling · Improved rehability and redundancy · Inherent user privacy · SIMULtaneous broadCAST of identical signals · All simulcast sites have identical frequencies · Wide area coverage · Improved in-building coverage · Supports digital applications System Design · Four (4) remote simulcast sites · Carter's Mountain · Buck's Mountain · Fan Mountain · Peters Mountain · One (1) relay site · Klockner Stadium · One (1) master control and dispatch facility · Emergency Communications Center (ECC) · One (1) secondary PSAP/dispatch facility · Charlottesville Fire Departmem Headquarters System · Six Design (Digital Microwave Network) (6) site point-to-point digital microwave network (6&10.6/11.2 GHz) Provides reliability needed for Public Safety communications. Audio transport for the simulcast radio system Interconnects radio simulcast sites with the ECC Provides loop diversity sit-mai routing (redundancy) Provides additional future voice and data transport Attachment C Competitive Negotiation Process (RFP) ATTACHMENT A January 26, 1999 · Request for proposal (RFP) issued and four finns were invited to submit proposals. March 5, 1999 Addendum · Clarified RFP specifications · Granted 16 day extension for proposals March 26, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 2, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 16, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 30, 1999 · Received single proposal from Motorola. Inc. for an 800 MHz analog/digital simulcast tnmked design. Proposal includes an 18-month implementation process from the contract sigm'ng date. Page 10 of I0 ATTACHMENT A TOWER FEASIBILITY REPORT Presented To: Albemarle County, VA County Attorney's Office By: RCC Consultants, Inc. 2400 Ownby Lane Richmond, Virginia 23220 tel (804) 353-0300 fax (804) 353-8059 August 8; 2001 Table of contents ATTACHMENT A ~xecutive Summary ........................................................................ 4 'Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Performance Requirements/Criteria ............................................................................................................... 4 800 MHz Coverage Design .................................................................................................................... 4 Site Interconnect - Microwave Radio System Design ............................................................................. 7 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Site Evaluations ........................................................................... . 11 Peters Mountain - 50-1D ............................................................................................................................. 12 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 12 Advantages ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... ...... 12 Peters Mountain - West I ............................................................................................................................. 13 Tower Description ..................................................................................... -, ......................................... 13 Advantages ............................................................................................... ' 13 Disadvantages ...................................................................................... ~ ............................................... 13 Comments ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 13 Peters Mountain- West II ........................................................................................................................... 14 Tower Description ............................................................................................................ ~ .................. 14 ~ Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 14 Peters Mountain - East ................................................................................................................................ 15 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 15 Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Disadvamages ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 15 Walnut Mountain- North ............................................................................................................................. 16 Tower Description .......... '. .................................................................................................................... 16 Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Comments ................................................................................................ : ........................................... 16 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 16 Walnut Mountain - South ............................................................................................................................. 17 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 17 Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Recommendation ................................................................................................................. : ............... 17 ~.Piney Mountain ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 18 Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Table of Contents ATTACHMENT A Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Comments... ......................................................................................................................................... 18~.~ Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. Goodlow Mountain ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 19 Advantages... . ................................................................................................. 19 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Recommendation ................................................................................................. : ............................... 20 Whitlock.: .................................................................................................................................................... 2.1 Tower Description ............................................................................................................................... 21 Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 21 Piney/Goodlow Combination .................................................................................. i ........................... ~ ........ 22 Tower Description ..................................................................................... : ......................................... 22 Advantages ................................................................................. ' ..................................... 22 Disadvantages ....................................................................... ' 22 Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 23 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 23 APPENDIX A - Site Design Layouts ........................................... 24 Peters Mountain - 50-1D ............................................................................................................................. 25 Peters Mountain - West I ............................................................................................................................. 25 Peters Mountain - West II ................................................................................................................... 25 Peters Mounzain - East ................................................................................................................................ 25 Walnut Mountain -North ............................................................................................................................. 25 Walnut Mountain -South ............................................................................................................................. 25 Piney/Goodlow Mountain Combination ....................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX B - 800 MHz Coverage ........................................... 27 Executive Summary ATTACHMENT A F xecutive Summary Introduction In April 2000, Albemarle County engaged RCC Consultants to perform a review of a Regional Public-Safety 800 MHz Tmnked Simulcast radio system design proposed by Motorola. The design was proposed to provide radio coverage for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and the regional airport (collectively "the Region"). During the evaluation, RCC determined some inefficiencies in the design and recommended changes to the site configuration to improve the coverage performance without significantly affecting the system's cost. RCC's recommendation was to. eliminate the originally proposed Rio Rd, Whiflock, and Sugar Loaf site locations and replace them with a site located on Peter's Mountain. This Recommendation was predicated on the fact that the original locations did not provide efficient radio frequency (RF) coverage or logical system functionality. RCC illustrated that a Peter's Mountain location would not only provide significantly improved radio coverage, but also improve the functional performance of the system and.' reduce the potential for user confusion that existed in the original design. This report was prepared at the direction of the Albemarle County Attorney's Office, as counsel to the Emergency Communications Center, to evaluate the feasibility of various alternative radio tower locations for use in the new 800 MHz radio design configuration, in order to fully evaluate the suitability of the Peter's Mountain location. Over the past nine months, numerous locations have been evaluated for this purpose. This ~'"~ort discusses the most recent locations presented by the Region's radio committee and the Piedmont ~nvironmental Council's consultant to RCC for consideration. Performance Requirements/Criteria 800 Mi]z CoveraRe DesiRn The optimal radio system design generates a continuous level of coverage throughout a given operational area to meet the operational needs of the identified user groups. Designing radio coverage is the science of selecting locations, antenna patterns, and antenna heights within a given geographical area that balances the operational needs of the users against the limitations imposed by 1) Federal Communications Commission requirements regarding RF emissions, 2) topography of the geographical area, 3)local land-use requirements regarding limitations on structure heights and locations, and 4) the budget of the organization implementing the radio system: However, in areas like Albemarle County, topotogic factors add a complication to achieving a continuous level of RF coverage. The large geographic size of Albemarle County and its hilly terrain, combined with the constraints set forth above, create significant challenges to providing ubiquitous radio coverage in the County. Public Safety radio system standards, dictate that a minimum of 90% of a jurisdiction's operational boundary should have portable in-street voice-radio coverage. The 911 Centers current design, including Peter's Mountain, minimally meets this performance requirement. The County's actual geographic boundary~ is ~...urrently predicted to be 86% covered while using a portable radio in street. However, the operational area is ~ The operational area is defined as the area of public safety's jurisdictional operation. This excludes areas such as the Shenandoah National Park. Executive Summa ATTACHMENT A predicted to have approximately 91% coverage. The City of Charlottesville and Urban Ring: are predicted to have 99% coverage. In addition to portable in-street coverage, the Region was looking to provide the besL--~ portable in-building coverage possible given the constraints mentioned above. Providing widespread in~ ~ building coverage not only requires additional site locations, but strategic placement of the sites is important in developing an efficient design. The value of Peter's Mountain or a comparable location in the Southwest Mountain Range originates fi-om a very simple topographic RFp 'nndple: the higher the elevation, the farther radio waves will carry and the more geographic area will be covered. However, strategic placement of the site location is important since mountains also act as excellent obstructions. For example, RF signals generated below one side of Peter's Mountain .peaks are likely to be blocked, thereby, requiring additional transmitters on the opposite side of the mountain 'to provide continuous radio coverage. For this reason and to achieve coverage efficiency, locating near the top of a mountain's peak is almost always preferred for most radio technologies and designs. For clarification purposes, it should be noted that there are some radio system designs that utilize Iow-level site locations. The majority of commercial cellular-type systems employ this design architecture. Howe,)er, these designs require many more tower locations in order to achieve a similar level of coverage and in many cases require more frequencies to achieve the same amount of channel capacity throughout the coverage area. This design is not as prevalent in Public Safety designs due to lack of spectrum avidlability and the fact that the same level of Public Safety coverage performance may not be achieved. In Albemarle's case, a design of this type was not recommended by the Region's original consultant (not RCC) nor was it proposed by any manufacturer during the procurement phase of the project.' Based on thecurrent performance and functional objectives of the Region, RCC concurs with this course of action. While a design of this type does exist, it is important to realize that purSUing this option for the Region present( a number of serious obstacles. First, additional towers will be expensive, as it is estimated that each single tower will cost between $500,000 and $1 million to construct, depending on system architecture type (i.e. Simulcast, Multicast, TDMA, etc.). Acquiring additional tower sites throughout Albemarle County will likely be difficult and expensive as well. Second, alternative system designs that utilize a greater number of towers will require additional frequencies from the FCC that are not currently available and that may n6t be available in the future. Other technical issues involve microwave coordination, in-building coverage performance, etc. TNrd, tower heights will likely increase as a result of placement at lower elevations throughout the County. As discussed later in this report, microwave facilities must be placed above treeline levels in order to maintain line- of-site communications, resulting in visibility issues that the County may wish to avoid. Furthermore, this design will require more towers to be located within a Regional Historic District (i.e. Southwest Mountain Range) in order to maintain a similar level of radio coverage~ In sum, building multiple radio towers at lower elevations throughout the coverage area will involve considerable additional expense and presents numerous technical, engineering and logistical issues that will be difficult to overcome and are beyond the scope of this report. The primary technical objective in designing radio coverage is to cover as .much geographic area with a single location. However, this is not the only objective and in developing a system design a number of parameters need to be considered. For example: · Type of coverage required (i.e. mobile, portable in-street, in-building, etc.) The Urban Ring is defined as the growth areas immediately surrounding Charlottesville and along Rt. 29. Executive Summary · Specific areas of importance (i.e. urban areas vs. rural uninhabited areas) · Failure scenarios (i.e. what happens to coverage when a site fails) ATTACHMENT A · Interference mitigation (minimizing signal degradation from other system operatOrs) Strategic placement of site locations helps minimize the number of sites while achieving the objectives required to provide the level of coverage.desked. The Region specified the development and implementation of a radio system infrastructure that would incorporate the minimum number of tower sites required at minimum heights while meeting the coverage requirements specified. These criteria were established in an effort to keep the cost of this radio system as Iow as possible and to be sensitive to Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan issues pertaining to tower locations. Once the type and geographic boundaries of coverage are determined, the next factor to consider is coverage redundancy. This is a critical factor since, at some point during a systems operation, a transmitter site is likely to fail. The reasons and probabilities of a failure scenario are beyond the s~ope of this report, but history h~ shown that site failures are inevitable - even for newly commissioned systems. In addition, signal redundancy helps to mitigate coverage degradation from interference (or signal degradation) and can improve in-building signal penetration as well. This being the case, a well-designed public safety radio system incorporates some level of coverage redundancy as an inherent part of the design. Higher elevations assist in achieving redundancy by providing overlapping signals that minimize coverage gaps in the event a site fails. A highly elevated location in the Southwest Mountain Range again plays an important ~'"e in the inherent redundancy of the Region's system design by providing coverage to areas that might otherwise not have coverage when the centrally located RF site (Carter's Mountain) fails. This is an important aspect for the entire Region since few locations in the Northeast section of the County provide redundant coverage to all parts of the Region fi-om a single location. Peter's Mountain offers the highest elevations in the Northeast corner of Albemarle. County. Consequently, there are few locations that can provide as efficient coverage fi-om a single location for the same amount of equipment and cost. Only one other location modeled by RCC in the. Northeast section of the County (Walnut Mountain) shows promise of providing similar coverage of the region. Some combinations of additional sites provide coverage similar to Peter's, but, as more fully discussed later in this report, the Region would be paying up to twice as much to provide the same level of performance. The expense of Public Safety radio equipment today demands that system designs be as efficient as possible. With average site costs of one million dollars per transmit location, experience has shown that inefficient designs can dramatically increase system costs. RCC, as the 911 Center's consultant, performed the coverage analysis for this report3. While it is believed that the prediction models are accurate, Motorola, as the system's primary vendor, will have to concur with the coverage analysis in order to provide the requisite coverage guarantee The propagation parameters used by RCC were those used to validate the Peter's Mountain design, which has already been confirmed by Motorola. 3 RCC utilizes internally developed UNIX based propagation software called ROMULUS® to produce propagation models. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT A Site Interconnect - Microwave Radio System Desien The Region's proposed radio system design is comprised of remote base station sites and a primary contro~ point (the "Prime Site") located at the new ECC. Each of these sites is separated by several miles and must be tied together, or interconnected, to facilitate the passage of audio and data signals between sites. This interconnecting backbone is a critical element of_the radio systen~ particularly as it relates to the system's reliability and performance. The integrity of the inter-site links directly affects the reliability of the communication system and the ability for its users to communicate. Interconnection of the site locations can be accomplished in a number of ways. One method of connecting sites is the use of telephone tie lines. The costs of dedicated telephone lines vary, but an average cost is $750 to $1000 per month for a conditioned 24-channel T1 line. The proposed system requires a minimum of 8 T1 lines to interconnect the remote locations to the ECC. 'Leased telephone lines do not e'hminate the need for a tower at the location. Since the 800 MHz voice system requires antenna towers, leased lines merely eliminate the need-for a microwave radio network to interconnect the sites. At some sites, eliminating the microwave might help to lower the tower height. However, in the case of the Peter's Mountain location, this is not the case, since the 800 MHz antennae:are the highest appurtenances. Leased telephone lines also entail certain potential problems. Users have experienced interruption of service through cable cuts or through failure of telephone equipment in switching offices. While the telephone companies are generally very responsive to repairing outages of emergency radio systemsi users have reported that outages occurred at a frequency and duration greater than allowed in a public safety system. The outages often happen during the worst possible moments when pUblic safety communications are critical (e.g. natural disasters). For this reason, leased services are typically not a recommended method of interconnection for..~,~ public safety systems. Another method of interconnecting sites is the use of fiber optic cable. When available, fiber provides a high degree of connectivity and is capable of passing large amounts of data. While fiber is susceptible to being cut during digging operations, some providers offer a higher level of reliability (as compared to leased telephone service) from improved system designs that include redundant ("diversity") paths for routing signals in the event of a cable cut. A draWback to fiber includes being relatively expensive to lease arid, in the Region's case, fiber currently does not exist at any of the proposed remote transmit sites in the system. Therefore, significant installation costs would be incurred in addition to ongoing service fees. The most popular and reliable means of connecting public safety communication sites is the use of a microwave radio system. Microwave radio systems have been in use for decades and have proven reliable and effective at providing the level of connectivity required of public safety'. These systems offer a high degree of flexibility in their configuration. A Microwave radio system can be implemented in three configurations: Loop, Star, or a Single Thread System. The most recent designs utilize a loop configuration, as it has proven to be the most reliable. This configuration allows for "loop switching" at each site w~'th a non-protected tranSmit/receive configuration of the radio. If there is a failure in the system as it is sending signals around the loop, a loop switch automatically reverses the path. The loop system is similar to the fiber optic system in that it starts at a central location and continues in a continuous loop through each site and returns to the central site. The inherent redundancy of a loop configuration is often referred to as "loop diversity." The Region's current design is proposed to have a Loop microwave design to interconnect the sites. ExecUtive Summary ATTACHMENT A Unlike point-to-multipoint radio designs (i.e. 800 MHz voice~designs), microwave systems are classified as p~int-to-point communications that utilize unidirectional antennas to transport signals from one geographic ~ation to another. The highly directional signal of a microwave radio system requires an unobstructed path oetween the two interconnecting locations to ensure reliable operation. This means that no natural or man-made RF obstructions (e.g. mountains, trees, buildings, billboards, etc.) can exist between the opposing microwave antennae. As with the 800 MHz coverage design, the clearance criteria for a microwave path is a highly technical balance between cost and performance. The objective is to locate the antennae high enough so that under severe super- standard atmospheric conditions there is adequate clearance to mitigate any signal degrading activity and provide highly reliable communication that has a projected availability of 99.9999%4. Path clearances are determined through thorough analysis of 1) terrain profiles using specialized propagation software; 2) local atmospheric conditions derived from published climatological data; and 3) actual path walk data collected by a microwave systems engineer/surveyor. In most cases, an adequate microwave antenna height can be achieved for reliable operation. However, the recommended height may not be deemed acceptable by local authorities for a number of reasons. The locations analyzed in this report indicate the necessary heights for a reliable microwave path as determined by preliminary, analysis performed by Harris Corporation (Motorola's .proposed microwave vendor). Recommendations of site feasibility are predicated on these heights. Final paths walks were not conducted on all of the locations in this report. Final site feasibility determination would require path verification that no natural, made-made, or other unusually high object would obstruct the path. Recommendation Upon review of the alternative site locations presemed by the County and the Piedmom Environmental Council's consultant, RCC's original recommendation -- that Peter's Mountain is the most suitable location -- remains unchanged for the following reasons: 1. Provides best (most efficiem) geographical coverage from a single location in the Northeast, thus rmmmmng cost; 2. Provides public-safety reliable site interconnectivity (loop diversity microwave) at reasonable antenna heights; 3. Provides good coverage redundancy in the event of a site failure;' 4. Provides good oVerlapping coverage to help mitigate potential interference and supplement in-building coverage; 5. The County has identified a suitable land parcel and is currently in negotiition for the property. 6. While the preferred Peters Mt. site is located within the Southwest Mountains Historic District, any other comparable location would fall within the same designated area. Data provided by the State Department of Historic Resources confirms that the Peter's Mountain location appears to have few potentially eligible historic sites nearby. In .fact, no sites located within a one-mile radius of the proposed tower site are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Locations or the Virginia Landmark Register. 4 This level of reliabiliw equates to approximately 30 seconds of downtime per year. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT A RCC has found n° other single location that performs as efficiently to satisfy the Region's radio performance requirements without adding additional sites and significant cost to the design. Based on 'Historical District research, it is also apparent that this location has the least impact on surrounding historical locations (those(v, either eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Locations or the Virginia Landmark Register) as compared to other alternatives investigated. It is RCC's opinion that compromising any of the first four items listed above would affect the integrity of the currently proposed system design. While the current design should easily provide improved communications over the Region's existing systems, financial constraints have already limited system design parameters to the point of barely meeting minimum acceptable public safety standards5. Since the current design is already at the threshold of meeting minimum public safety standards on a Countywide level, any reduction in performance at this stage would be a decision the Region may regret and pay d .egrly to correct in the furore. Of the site options presented by the County, only one potential design alternative exists (Walnut Mountain - North) that is predicted to provide a similar level of performance as the Peter's 50-1D location. However, this alternative is also expected to have the same or more logistical issues confronting its implementatiori. While other site alternatives included in this report are close to the same performance, as stated before any reduction in design performance is not recommended. It should be noted that some of the analyzed alternatives in the Southwest Mountain Range that fall short of meeting the current design performance could potentially be modified to match performance by increasing .the tower height. However, that alteration goes against the purpose of this analysis and the design objectives of the Region. Of the site or site-combination alternatives analyzed that provide similar composite coverage6 as a design utilizing Peter's 50-1D, they are not recommended since they compromise one or more of the reasons that Peter's was recommended above. For example, a design that utilizes a Piney/Goodlow combination compromises at least three of the four technical reasons stated above as to why Peter's is a more suitable location. Specifically, a Piney/Goodlow combination is not recommended for the following reasons: 1. Requires additional site locations to provide a similar composite coverage as Peter's 50-1D. Additional capital cost is approximately $800K - $1.2M; 2. Reduces redundant 800 MHz coverage in Charlottesville and Urban Ring as compared to Peter's 50-1D location; Reasonable microwave paths are only. achievable to these sites with a Hot-Standby Spur design.7 This would NOT provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) microwave design to these locations (see Site Design Layouts); 4. County restrictions at Goodlow currently limit tower type, tower height, tower lighting, and antenna types; and Goodlow is located within the Southwest Mountain range and therefore requires the same .historic review process as Peter's Mountain. However, a tower site on Goodlow would have potentially greater impact on historic properties, according to data provided by the State Department of Historic Resources. 5 For reference, other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth (Henrico County, Chesterfield County, Faiffax County, City of Richmond, and the City of Chesapeake) have recently implemented systems very similar to that proposed for the Albemarle Region. However, these systems all had coverage design parameters that exceed those of the Albemarle Region's curreat design. 6 Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. ? A hot standl~ design does not employ loop diversity, but instead uses backup microwave radios in a star or single thread configuration to provide redundant,. This configuration does not always provide the same level of reliability as a loop configuration. Executive Summary ATTACHMENT A Other site alternatives were not recommended for similar reasons as listed above and are specifically discussed ~'~the Site Evaluation section of this report. In conclusion, it is RCC's opinion that Peter's Mountain 50-1D continues to be the best alternative of all options presented 'in this report. RCC believes that other locations discussed below are not as suitable and present greater obstacles from a technical coverage, cost and land use perspective. It is likely that alternatives to Peter's Mt. will cost the Region more money, without improving system-wide performance. ATTACHMENT A Site Evaluations Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Tower Description Peters Mountain- 50-1D Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Heir, bt (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antennas (Center Lines): Proposed Tower T~vpe: Estimated Additional Capital Costs Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius~ Latitude- 38:07:22.4 N Longitude- 78:17:24.8 W 1650.5 110 feet 125 feet 6' dish at 85' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99997% Path Reliability) 6' dish at 95' - To Carters Mtn. (99.99994% Path Reliability) Self Supporter (New Construction) None (Benchmark) Advantages · Composite~° 800 MHz coverage very good with this site included (See Coverage Table) · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are at reasonable antenna heights and provide the reqtfired reliability · Efficient 800 MHz coverage from this single location, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance (see Coverage Table) · Communication facility and structures already exist on Peter's Motmtain (AT&T Facility) · Available parcel has been identified, negotiations with Land Owner are m process Disadvantages * Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessmem Comments None Recommendation RECOMMENDED - PREFERRED L OCA TION This is the best location overall for locating a site. I) Provides the best overall 800 MHz coverage 2) Lowest capital expenditure 3) All Performance requirements are fulfilled with reasonable structure parameters 4) Fewest potentially eligible historic locations within the vicinity - none within one mile radius 5) Property negotiation is already underway This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the ori~nal Peter's 50-1D design. ~q'his quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Virginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. t0 Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. ATTACHMENT A ] 05'-20' BMR-12 ANTENNA 95'-6' Antenna/Radome @227° 85'-6' Antenna/Radome @247© Proposed antenna at recommended C/L Tower scale not precise. 110 Foot Self-Supported Tower 125' Antenna Tip 105'-20' BMR- 12 ANTENNA [~1 80'-20' BMR-12 ANTENNA No~e: Heights observed from ground level using binoculars. Heights may not be exact. Peters Mtn Tower Profile SO · lte Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Peters Mountain- West I Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Heisht (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenr~q (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost~ Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius~2 Latitude - 38:07:20,2 N Longitude - 78:17:43.1 W 1541,7 110 feet 125 feet 61 dish at 701 - To Klockner Stadium (99.99997% Path Reliability) 6 dish at 70 - To Carters Mm: (99.99994% Path Reliability) Self Supporter (New Construction) None 1 Advantages · Composite~s 800 MHz coverage good with this site included (see Coverage Table) · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are at reasonable antenna heights and provide the required reliability · Efficient 800 MI-Iz coverage fi:om this Sillgle locatioll, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance Disadvantages /... · Considerably reduced redundant 800 MHz "Heavy" in-building coverage in Charlottesville and U~,ban Ring as compared to Peter's 50-1D location · Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Moul~tain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessment · An available parcel has NOT been identified Comments · Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation NOT RECOMMENDED This is a potential alternative to Peter's 50-1D. However, it provides considerably less in-building coverage to Charlottesville (71% less) and the Urban Ring (29% less). This site is not a perfect replacement, but would be a "better than nothing" alternative in the event Peter's 50-1D was unavailable. Also, no specific parcel has been identified as being available. Location for propagation analysis was chosen randomly based on ideal topography. 11 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the ori~nai Peter's 50-1D design. ,~,,This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Xr~ginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. ,3 Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Peters Mountain - West H Tower De~ription Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower l-lei~zht (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenns~q (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Costt4 Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radins~s I,atimde - 38:07:37.4 N Longitude - 78:17:18.2W 1700.1 110 feet 125 feet 6' dish at 70' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99997% Pa~ Reliability) 6' digh at 70' - To Carters Mm. (99.99993% Path Reliability) Serf Supporter (New Constmcaon) None 1 Advantages Composite16 800 ~ coverage good with this site included (see Coverage Table) · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are at reasonable antenna heights and provide the required reliability · Efficient 800 MHz coverage from this single location, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance Disadvantages · Considerably reduced (42%) redundant 800 MHz "Heavy" in-building coverage in Charlottesville as compared to Peter's 50-1D location · Located within a Nation Historic Prese~ation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessment · An available parcel has NOT been identified Comments · Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation NO T RECOMMEND ED This is a potential alternative to Peter's 50-1D. However, it provides considerably less in-building coverage to Charlottesville (42% less). This site is not a perfect replacement, but would be a "better than nothing" alternative in the event Peter's 50-1D was unavailable. Also, no specific parcel has been identified as being available. Location for propagation analysis was chosen randomly based on ideal topography. ~4 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the ori~nai Peter's 50-1D design. ~5 This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Virginia Lan0mark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. ~s Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): [' Tower Height (tip): Ions Peters Mountain - East Longitude - 78:17:04.0W ATTACHMENT A 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenna~ (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost~: Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius~s Latitude - 38:07:22.8 N 1555.8 245 feet 125 feet 6' dish at 240~ - To Klockner Stadium (99.99994% Path Reliability) 6' dish at 115' - To Carters Mm. (99.99993% Path Reliability) Serf Supporter (New Construction) None Advantages · Composite~ 800 MHz coverage good with this site included (see Coverage Table) · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are available and provide the required reliability · Efficient 800 MI-Iz coverage from this single location, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance Disadvantages · Significantly reduced 800 MHz in-street and in-building coverage in all areas as compared to Peter's 50- iD location · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are at increased antenna heights as compared to Peter's 50-1D, requiring increased tower ~" height (135' higher) · Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessment · An available parcel has blOT been identified Comments · Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation .NOT RECOMMENDED This is a potential alternative to Peter's 50-ID. However, it provides little or no in-building coverage to Charlottesville and the Urban Ring. This site is not a perfect replacement, but would be a "better than nothing" alternative in the event Peter's 50-1D wus unavailable. 17 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the ori~nal Peter's 50-1D design_ /~-~This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligtl>le but not currently listed on the'Virginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing, impact on surrounding sites. ~9 Composite coverage means that ail transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. 5'7 Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Height (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Ante~na.~ (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: ~.nfimated Additional Capital Costa° Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius2~ Hi.~orical Sites within one milea Walnut Mountain - North Latitude -'38:05:58~6 N 1382.6 Longitude - 78:13:53.1W 110 feet 125 feet 6' dish at 80' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99998% Path Reliability) 6' dish at 80'- To Carters Mm. (99.99997% Path Reliability) Self Supporter (New Construction) None 6 1 - Castle Hill Advantages Composite:~ 800 MHz coverage very good with this site included (see Coverage Table) ' · Microwave paths to adjacent sites are at reasonable antenna heights and provide the required reliability · Efficient 800 MHz coverage from this single location, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance Disadvantages · Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessment Potentially greater number of historic properties would be affected · An available parcel has NOT been identified Comments · l:~relirninary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation TECHNICALLY VIABLE SITE This locatiOn provides equivalent performance to Peter's 50-1D. However, no specific parcel has been identified as being available. Location for propa~on analysis was chosen randomly based on ideal topography. 2o This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the ori~nal Peter's 50-1D design. 21 This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Vkginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. m This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are listed on the Vir~nia Landmark Register or the National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. ~ Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a Countywide coverage contour. ATTACHMENT A wer Description Walnut Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Rei t (tip): 800 MI-Iz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenna.q (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost24 Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius2~ Historical Sites within one mile2° Latitude - 38:05:34.9 N Longitude - 78:19:21.7W 1377.8 130 feet 125 feet 6' dish at 125' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99999% Path Reliability) 6' dish at 70' - ToCarters Mm. (99.99998% Path Reliability) Serf Supporter (New) None 1 - Castle Hill Advantages Composite2z 800 MI-Iz coverage good with this site included (see Coverage Table) . Microwave paths to adjacem sites are available and provide the required reliability · Efficient 800 MHz coverage from this single location, thus, requiring the least capital expenditure to provide performance Disadvantages · Considerably reduced redundant 800 MHz "Light-Medium" in-building coverage in Charlottesville (32% less) and Urban Ring (15% less) as compared to Peter's 50-1D location · Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o ReqUires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires N-EPA Section t06 Environmental Assessment o Potentially greater n,,m~r of historic properties would be affected · An Available Parcel has NOT been identified Comments · Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation .NOT RECOYI~IENDED This is a potential alternative to Peter's 50-1D. However, it provides considerably less in-building coverage in Charlottesville (32% less) and Urban Ring (15% less). This site is not a perfect replacement, but would be a "better than nothing" alternative in the event Peter's 50-1D was tmavailable. 24 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implemem this site as ~ompared to the original Peter's 50-1D design. va This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the V~ginla Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a ~ThiDepartment of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. . s quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are listed on the Virginia Landmark Register or the National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Deparlment of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. 27 Composite coverage means that all transmit site in the design are transmitting to produce a County-wide coverage contour 5-_3 Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Tower Description Pine), Mountain CoordinateS (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Height (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenna.q (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: 2~ E~imat~c! Additional Capital Cost Number of Potentially Eligible Historic SiteS w~thin one mile radius29 Latitude - 38:10:43.0 N Longitude- 78:25:12.0W 1076 88 feet 108 feet Hot-Standby Spur Design 6' dish at 88' - To Carters Mm. (99.99992% Path Reliability) Loop DeSign (preferred) OBSTRUCTED PATH TO KLOCKNER AT THE EXISTING TOWER HIEGHTS I(Piney ~ 88', Kloctmer ~ 75') EXISTING Self Supporter INone 0 - This location is not within a Historic District Advantages · An existing tower location Disadvantages · Reasonable microwave antenna heights are only achievable at this site with a Hot-Standby Spur design to Carter's mouamin,/~-~ This would NOT provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) microwave deign to this location. ~.~ · Composite~° 800 MHz coverage is NOT acceptable with this site included as a direct replacement for Peter's · Considerably reduced 800 MHz coverage (in-street and in-building) in Albemarle, Charlottesville, and Urban Ring as compared to Petex.'s 50-1D location (see Coverage Table) · Requires long term lease obligation - Lease costs have not been negotiated Comments · This site location may become viable ff combined with another location that would compliment its coverage contour. Piney does a reasonable job of covering the western side of Peter's Mountain. Supplemental coverage is required on eastern side of Peter's. One possible alternative would be a Piney/Goodlow Mtn. combination. However, this alternative would cost considerably more (approximately $800K -$1.2M dollars additional) Recommendation NOT RECOMMENDED - NOT VIABLE (Standalone) Potentially viable in combination with a complimentary site. any possibility of loop diversity microwave to this location. Site interconnectivity only good to Carter's Mountain~ eliminating 2~ This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the original Peter's 50-1D deSign. m This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Virginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. Thc one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. 3o Composite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a County-wide coverage contour Site Evaluations Goodlow Mountain ATTACHMENT A Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Heisht (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antenna.~ (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost~ Number of PotenfiMiy Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radins3: Latitude - 38:08:11.9 N L0n~itude - 78:16:19.6W 1456.2 110 feet (This height will only support a hot-standby microwave design) 125 feet Hot-StancIbv Spur Design 6' dish at 75' - To Piney (99.99999% Path Reliability) Loop Design (vreferred) 6' dish at 380' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99987% Path Reliability) 6' dish at 490' - To Carters Mm. (99.99965% Path Reliahili~) Self Supporter (New Construction) None Advantages * Microwave paths to adjacent sites are available and provide the required reliability Disadvantages · Composite~3 800 ~ coverage is NOT acceptable with this site included as a direct replacement for Peter's · Considerably reduced 800 MHz coverage (in-street and in-building) in Albemarle and Urban Ring as compared to Peter's 50- 1D location (see Coverage Table) Provides no coverage to the City of Charlottesville Existing tower structure is to low (80') and not strong enough for the public safety application Reasonable microwave antenna heights are only achievable to this site with a Hot-Standl~ Spur design. This would NOT provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) microwave deign to this location. Loop diversity feasible only fftower heights are si~maificantly increased atboth ends. * County restrictions currently limit tower type, tower height, tower lighting, and antenna types · Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessment o Requires NEPA Section, 106 Environmental Assessment o Potentially greater number of historic properties would be affected Comments · Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights · This site location may become viable if combined with another location that would compliment its coverage contour. One possible alternative would be a Piney/Goodlow Mm. combination. However, this alternative would cost considerably more (approximately $800K- $1.2M dollars additional) 31 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the original Peter's 50-1D design. 32 This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible bm not currently listed on the Vkginia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a /~'~ Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. ,~omposite coverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to prorh~ce a County-wide coverage contour ~n A hot standby design does not employ loop diversity, but instead uses backup microwave radios in a star or single thread configuration to provide redanclancy. This configuration does not always provide the same level of reliability as a loop configuration. Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Recommendation NOT RECOMMENDED- NOT VIABLE (Standalone) Potentially viable in combination with a complimentary site. Site interconnectivity only good to Piney Mountain, eliwinatmg any~-~ possibility of loop diversity microwave to this location without significantly increasing tower height. Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Iteight (tip): 00 MHz imte-,;~ at (tip): Mierowave Antenna.~ (Center Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Additional Capital Cost~ Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius36 WhitloCk Latitude ~ 38:03:55.0 N Longitude - 78:14:24.0W 516 1000 feet (required for 800MHz coverage) 1000 feet NO VIABLF. PATH WITH EXISING 145' TOWER OBSTRUCTED PATH TO CARTERS AT THE EXISTING TOWER HIEGHTS (Wl-dtlock @ 75', Carters @ 210') I No additional Irath analysis was COnducted as~q~ming a new tower Self Sul~rter (New Construction) [None 0 - This location is not within a Historic District Advantages Whitlock has aa existing tower, however, for slxuctural reasons another tower would have to be COnstructed or the Ori~nni tOWer would have to be replaced Disadvantages ~ * New 1000' Tower would have to be COnstructed · Required tower height is impractical · Compositesz 800 MHz coverage is NOT acceptable with this site included as a direct replacement for Peter's · Considerably reduced 800 MHz coverage (in-street and in-building) in Albemarle as COmpared to Peter's 50-1D location · Provides little coverage to Urban Ring and no coverage to the City of Charlottesville · Reasonable microwave antenna heights are only achievable to this site with a Hot-Standby Spur design. This would NOT provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) microwave design to this location Comments · None Recommendation NOT RECOMMENDED - NOT VIABLE This site does not produce enough RI* COverage to warrant recommendation 21s This indicates any estimated additional COst required, to implement this site as COmpared to the original Peter's 50-1D design. 2t6 ~ · . ~ s quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currently listed on the Vir~nia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of Historical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. 217 Composite COverage means that all transmit sites in the design are transmitting to produce a County-wide coverage COntour Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A PineF/Goodlow Combination Tower Description Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (fee0: Tower Height (tip): 800 MHz Antenna Ht (tip): Microwave Antennas (Cemer Lines): Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost~s Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius39 PINEY l~0t. de - 38:10:43.0 N Longitude - 78:25:12.0W 1076 88 feet 108 feet Hot,Standby Spur Design 6' dish at 88"- To Carters Mtn. (99.99992% Path Reliability) Loop Design (preferred) OBSTRUCTED PATH TO KLOCKNER AT THE EXISTING TOWER H~EGHTS (Piney @ 88', gaockner @ 75') No further path analysis was conducted ass-ming a new tower EXISTING Self Supporter None 0 - This location is not within a Historic District Coordinates (NAD 27): Elevation (feet): Tower Height (tip): GOODLOW II,atimde - 38:08:11.9 N Longitude- 78:16:19.6W 1456.2 110 feet (This height will only support a hot-~imidby microwave design) 125 feet 800 M147 Am~.nna Hi (tip): Microwave Antenna~ (Center Lines): Hot-Standby Spur Design 6' dish at 75' - To Piney (99.99999% Path Reliability) Proposed Tower Type: Estimated Additional Capital Cost~' Number of Potentially Eligible Historic Sites within one mile radius36 Loop Design (preferred) 6' dish at'380' - To Klockner Stadium (99.99987% Path Reliability) 6' di.qh at 490' - To Carters Mtn. (99.99965% Path Reliability) Self Supporter (New Con,qtmcfion) $800k - $1.2 Million ~ Advantages · Piney is an existing tower · Goodlow site has an existing tower, however, for structural reasons another tower would have to be constructed or the original tower would have to be replaced Disadvantages · Considerably reduced 800 MHz in-building coverage in Albemarle and Urban Ring as compared to Peter's 50-1D location (see Coverage Table) · Existing tower structure at Goodlow is too low (80') and not slxucturally adequate for the public safety application 38 This indicates any estimated additional cost required to implement this site as compared to the original Peter's 50-1D design. 39 This quantifies the number of sites within one mile of this tower location that are 50 years old or older and are eligible but not currentlv listed on the Vir~nia Landmark Register or National Register of Historic Locations. The one-mile radius is a Department of HistOrical Resources (DHR) criterion for assessing impact on surrounding sites. Site Evaluations ATTACHMENT A · Reasonable microwave antenna heights are only achievable to this~site with~a Hot-Standby Spur design. This would NOT ,.~. provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) miCrOwave deign to this location. Loop diversity feasible only if tower heights are significantly increased at both ends. · Two sites are required to provide a ~milar coverage as provided by Peter's 50-ID - increased cost · Goodlow is Located within a Nation Historic Preservation District - Southwest Mountain Range o Requires FCC Environmental Assessmem o Requires NEPA Section 106 Environmental Assessmem · An Available Parcel has I~IOT been negotiated · Reasonable microwave paths are only achievable to these sites with a Her-Standby4° Spur design. This would NOT provide for a "Loop Diversity" (preferred) microwave deign to these locations (see Site Design Layout) · Piney Mt. would require a long term lease obligation - Lease costs have not been negotiated · County rest~ctious at Goodlow currently limit tower type, tower height, tower lighting, and antenna types Comments Preliminary ("Paper") Microwave Study has been performed. Path walk is required to validate path and antenna heights Recommendation NOT RECOMMENDED This is a potential alternative to Peter's 50-1D. However, it provides considerably less in-building and in-street coverage to Charlottesville (see Coverage table). This site combination is not a perfect replacement, but would be a "better ~han nothing" alternative in the event Peter's 50,1D was unavailable. Independently, these locations do not'provide performance equal to that of Peters 50-1D. ~ A hot standlyy design does not employ loop diversity, but instead uses backup microwave radios m a star or single thread configuration to provide redundancy. This configuration does not always provide the same level of reliability as a loop configuration.. ATTACHMENT A APPENDIX A - Site Desi n La outs Site Design Layouts are provide so the reader can visualize the geographic layout of the radio sites and microwave path design. The yellow and red crosses indicate the site locations (please disregard the difference in color). The green lines connecting the sites indicate the direction of the microwave path between sites. Since many of the site locations are clustered together around the original Peter's 50- 1D location, a single site layout is provided for the "clustered" alternatives. In each case, the microwave path design would be similar in design. A separate layout design is provided when the microwave design is significantly different than the original design. ~C RCC Consultants, Inc. Page 24 of 29 September 24, 2001 Site Design Layouts Peter's Mountain- 50-1D Peter's Mountain- West I Peter's Mountain- West H Peter's Mountain - East Walnut Mountain -North Walnut Mountain -South ATTACHMENT A ~'~ RcC consultants, InC. Page 25 of 29 September 24i 2001 Site Design Layouts Pine~/Goodlow MoUntain Combin~on ATTACHMENT A RCC Consultants, Inc. Page 26 of 29 September 24, 2001 ATTACHMENT A APPENDIX B - 800 MHz Covera e ~CRCC Consultants, Inc. Page 27 of 29 September 24, 2001 800 MHz Covera -e ATTACHMENT A The following table provides coverage prediction data for the alternatives evaluated in this report. Benchmark data on the Peter's 50-1D location is provided for reference and is highlighted bold italicized with yellow background. Predictions for three primary scenarios are provided as follows. 1. Composite Design Coverage - Coverage predicted with all sites transmitting 2. Failure Scenarios - Coverage provided when the most centrally located site (i.e. Carter's Mt.) fails. 3. Single Site Coverage - Coverage provide'by each alternative site. This illustrates the overall coverage efficiency of each individual site. In conjunction with the failure scenario data, this also provides an indication of the level of redundancy provided by the site. Bold red percentages indicate a significant reduction of coverage (approximately.10% or greater) as compared to the benchmark site (Peter's 50-1D). Three specific areas Of the Region were evaluated. 1. Albemarle County - Geographical boundary of the County 2. The City of Charlottesville - Geographical Boundary of the City 3. Urban Ring - A specific geographic area ofgrowth around Charlottesville and along Rt. 29, North of Charlottesville (see the shaded area on the site layout illustrations). For each area modeled (i.e. Albemarle, Charlottesville, Urban Ring), a summary (percentage) ofthe area covered at three different signal levels is indicated. The signal levels used are listed at the top of the table (under the area name) and are highlighted in bold green text. These signals levels provide an estimation of the amount of signal requked for three different operating scenarios as defined below. 1. -83.7 - The signal level required for using a portable radio inside of a "large" building. In this case a large building is defined as a large ',downtown" or commercial building, or enclosed shopping mall exhibiting 20dB of signal loss. 2. -93.7 - The signal level required for using a portable radio inside of a "small" to "medium" building. In this case a small to medium building is defined as small to medium stores, small apartment buildings, or small to medium factory or office buildings exhibiting lOdB of signal loss. 3. - t 03.7 - The signal level required for using a portable radio on the street. ~{~CCRCC Consultants, Inc. Page 28 of 29 September 24, 2001 800 ATT~CHMENT A ~'~C RCC Consultants, Inc. Page 29 of 29 September 24, 2001 ATTACHMENT A September 24, 2001 Jan Sprinkle Chief of Zoning Administration Albemarle County Building & Zoning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Subject: Applicati°n for Special Use Permit for thc Regional 800 M14_2. Public Safety Radio System Project Dear Jan, Attachad for your review and processing is the special use permit application for the Peters Mountain radio tower site that will be the sixth site in the infi-astruemre design for the Regional 800 MHz Public Safety.. Radio System project for the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. 1 have enclosed with this application package an Executive Summary that will assist in explaining the..history o.f ,?is . project, the masons for implementation of a neW800 MHz radio system, and the beaefits to the public. Also mcmded ~s a Tower Fcasibihty Report prepared by RCC Consultants, Inc. that has been previously.presented to the Board of Supervisors and County,. City, Univ.er~i_'ty and ECC .staff who ,have bee~..wo.,rking ~ vano.~ ~ .o,_.f~t~_ ~e .proj~;~.sh~e. This report in addition to the above information has been used to consider tlae various options menunea mesta g final radio system infraslrueture design for the project Thank you in advance for your assistance and consideration in this process. If you have any questions or additional information is required please let me know. Sincerely Wayne S. Campagna Eg- 1-1 Projects Coordinator Cc: ECC Management Board Tom Foley, Deputy County Executive Tom Hanson, Director Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney Bill Fritz, Albemarle County Charlottesville - UVA- Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 (804) 971-1022 .ATTACHMENT A - October 1 O, 2001 Mr. Thomas C. Foley Assistant County Executive County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Reference: Regional Public Safety 800MHz Radio System Project Dear Tom: This letter has been prepared in response to several questions recently raised about the use of the American Tower Site (#10109) near Shadwell as an alternative site or additional site for the Kegional Public Safety 800MHz Radio System. In short, the answer is no, the Shadwell tower would not be a viable site for the radio system based on the following information: 1. Our tower site planned for Carters Mountain already encompasses the 800 MHz (RF) system coverage' that the Shadwell tower site would provide with its current tower structure height of 293 fi. or even the new proposed tower structure height of 260 ff. ' 2. The Shadwell tower site has not been considered a viable tower site or even an alternative site to the Peters Mountain site because 800 MHz (RF) propagation coverage analysis shows a tower structure height of greater than 1,000 fi. would be required to even begin to obtain a similar amount of 800 MHz (RF) area coverage that will be provided by the Peters Mountain tower site in the Northeast area of the County. 3. Propagation coverage analysis using modeling towers heights ~)f300 ft., 500 ft., 700 ft. and 1,000 fi. for the Shadwell tower location shows significantly less 800 MHz (RF) system coverage in the northeast area of the County compared to coverage that will be provided by the Peters Mountain tower site. It should also be noted that the required microwave path between Peters Mountain and Shadwell is blocked using the proposed tower structure heights for these two locations. Charlottesville- UVA - Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 (434) 970-I098 ATTACHMENT A A tower structure height of at least 125 fi. (Microwave Antenna Center Line 120 ft) at Peters Mountain and a tower structure height of at least 755 ft. (Microwave Antenna Center Line 750 fi) at Shadwell would be required to have a viable microwave path between the two tower sites. In consideraiion of current local tower policies, I don't believe a tower structure height exceeding 1,000 feet would be acceptable at this location, much less any other location in the County. Even in a collocation scenario, the use of the American Tower at Shadwell as an additional site in the overall system design would not provide a shorter tower situation for the proposed tower on Peters Mountain. The proposed Peter's tower structure height of 110 ft. is based on both microwave and 800 MHz (RF) antennae coverage design requirements specified by Motorola and Harris COrporation. The current proposed antennae heights are the minimum heights acceptable by them to guarantee system coverage design and microwave path reliability. Finally, the cost sharing of this project by the County, City, University and Airport has been based on the current system design of six tower site locations. These tower sites · have been recommended by our consultant based on many months and hours of sound technical eValuation, analysis and investigation and have been identified by our consultant as the best sites for our system in consideration of both local policy and fiscal concerns as well as coverage requirements. Therefore, the use of the Shadwell tower as an additional site for collocation would only add more cost (approximately 3/4-1 million dollars) to the overall project cost without the benefit of generating any new areas of coverage from that already provided by the Carters Mountain site. The Only benefit of the Shadwell tower would be increased coverage density (In-Building Coverage) in the vicinity of the Shadweii tower. In conclusion, I hope this information is beneficial in response to the questions raised regarding the American Tower (//10109) ske at Shadwell and the feasibility of its use as an alternative or additional tower site for our radio system project. Should additional information be desired reference this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Wavne S. Campagna Projects Coordinator WSC/jnh Cc: Tom Hanson, Director ~vVayne Cilimberg Stephen Waller Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney Valerie W. Long, McGuire Woods LLP Jim Morgan, RCC Consultants, Inc. FLBEMRRLE COUNTY FITTY Fax:454-972~4069~, .... ::~'~:'" O~f. 24 200.1. 1:3:4.3 ATTACHMENT A October 24, 2001 BY F, AX: (804) 367-2591 AND FIRST CLASS Mr. Marc Holma, Architectural Historhn Division of Resource Service~ and Review Virginia DePartment of Historic Kesoumes 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 Re: 800 MHz Regional Public Safety Radio Sysmm Dear Mr. Holms: I am writing in response to (1) the letter dated September 27, 2001 from Jeffrey' Wemer of the Piedmont Environmental Council to Cam Metz of your office, and (2) your letter of October 10, 200I to Mr, Wemer. As legal counsel to the Charlottesville-University of Virginia-. Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center, o. ur office has been involved in the proposed regional g00 MHz public safety radio communications project described in Mr. Wemer's letter.. The proposed tower about which Mr. Werner has voiced concerns would be constructed on a 2-acre parcel located on Peter's Mt. in the northeastern part of Albemarle County..As Mr. Wemer points out, this parcel is located within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The proposed tower is part of a multi-jurisdictional public safety communications project, and will require licensure by the Fcdcral Communications Commission. As a result, we are very aware of the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and have been actively working towards fulfilling applicable requirements pertaining to this project in the following way~. First, with the assistance of your staff archivist, Project Director Wayne Campagna recently visited your offices in Richmond and undertook a review of all potentially affected sites located within a one-mile radius of the proposed tower site. All other information needed to complc-'m thc Project Rcviow Form for this project is being compiled and will be submitted with the Form to your office for review. Second, Albemarle County land use regulations require a special use permit in order to construct and operate the proposed tower at this location. These regulations call for an extensive review process by County Planning staff and public hearings before the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in order to obtain public comment on the proposed tower. We recognize the importance of public comment in the Section 106 review process, and therefore we ALBEMARLE CgUNTY ATTY Fax :,454-972-4068 13c,',','t 2,4. 2001 1;5:4.5 ATTACHMENT A Mr. Marc Holma, Architectural Historian Division of Resource Services and I/.eview O~-tob~r 24, 2001 Page 2 decided to hold the public heatings and solicit public comment befoxe filing the Project Review Form · with you~ office. Third, the license application for the Pear's Mt. tower has not yet been filed with the FCC. We envision completing the local land us~ and S~ction 106 review processes (including the aforementioned public hearings) prior to submittal of the Project Review Form to your office and prior to filing the FCC application for this particular sit~. If you or your colleagues in the Department have concerns about this, please let me know. Jim Morgan of KCC Consultants, Inc. in Richmond is consultant for the project and can provide more d~tailed information concerning the status of the FCC license application for the Peter's Mt. site. He. can be reached at (g04) 353-0300, ext. 115. Fourth, I have previously spoken with-Ms, M~'lz concerning the Section 106 review process and your Department's role in revi~win§ thc project. She has bccn v~cy helpful in providing information concerning this process and the various factors that your Department will examine once t~e Project Review Form has b6en submitted, Finally, contrary to Mr. Wemer's statements in his letter, the County and other memlx~rs of our regional 911 Center are committed to giving full and appropriate consideration to the potential impact of the proposed public safety communications lower on historic properties located within the Rural Historic District, as required by federal law. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning these matters. Sincerely yours~ Mark A. T rank Deputy County Attorney Bob Tucker, County Executive Gary O'Connell, City Manager Leonard Sandridge, Chief Operating Officer, UVA Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive Jim Morgan, RCC Wayne Campagna ~I~ETER'S MOUNTAIN ELEVATION ,~i i'=100' (HORZ & VERT) NOTES: I ]he oroooseo lower s~te IS locu[§d on [ox Mop 50 Parcel 1D Owner:Eric Frost, ~eedbook 1868 Page 450. 2 Topographic information on this Dian was generated fram a IJeld surve! Derlorrned ay Rivanna Engineering & Surveying on September 19. 2001. Benchmarks were set b~ Louisa Aeric Surveys, lac 5. Refer to Sheet 2 for overall toDograDhiC -'ormatlon 4. Tower Elevat{on IS shown be]aw· Peter: Mo item Heiqht -- rmv er_ Tree 57' ~ntenna 01 95' ~6'2 ss' an!enn'~-~'J- 105' Antenna 04 Antenna 05 80' _ · Schedule __ ....... Mount Finish N/A Oolvanize_~d N/A N/A .-- i Ston.dord .Dish No Stand off None ~ Standard Dish No Stand off None ~!~_~_5~dio_X 20' ti' Stand off None ale 6"dia X ~0' §' Stand off None o1~ 6"din X 20'6' Stand off None NOTE: I Tower e~evatlOrl s the top o~ lower 50 Parcel IC ~c Frost DB 1866-454 Zoned: RA TREE 5~TA~L L TREE P~ooosea Tower ,S~te Refer to Detail' Above CD' ]1' ]'ALL TREE / 4t TALL TRE~ ,/ / / TM 50 Parcel lA Amer~caa Telephone & Telegraph o/VA DB 38~ - 145 Zoned: RA 4-"sPETER'S MOLINTAIN SITE~I,AN TM 49 Parcel 26B Eric Fros! DB 1712-659 Zoned: FCA B ATTACHMEN BENCHMARK; TOWER SITE DE'_I~IL BCAL~;: 1"~ 20' VIC1N1TY MAP ~hect, No' I of 3 ?/ ATTACHMENT B qOTES: The 10' conlol~r's shown on this' DI(]~ were nterpolmted from m 50' COFI~OUF ~cDograohic romp )brained from me Coumt, of Albemarle. .All properties witkin 2000' of the D~Or)sec '~er are RA. zone(] ~/The Di~ODOSed tower ocatk)n is 9 miles from [he Chmrlo[tesville/Albemorle W~ROF'OSED RADIO OWER Revisions: NO. I DESCRIPllON I DATE 1 ~Rev. Co.tour~ IH-19-01 ". $heet No: 2of3 ATTACHMENT B I' ' CERTIFICA1E No. TM 50 Pc~ce! lA P,'onosea Radio 'r'ower SJ[e ~ 49 Parcel 25 x ...... ECxisting Dwelling 3of3y) ESRI ArcExplorer 2.0 Map Title SP 01-048 PETER'S .,'",,.'" albO50_con3d.dgn (Elevation) -'"----" albO49_con3d.dg n /'-,'" albO36_con3d.dgn .,,"'? albO35_con3d.dgn Friday, Oct 12 2001 0ct,15. 2OO] ]2'50PM ~[EDMONT ENVl ~ RONMENTAj PIEDMONT E~RONMENT~2b COUNCIL and p~e~in$ ~e Pi~dmont~ rural ~onom)~ na~o~l ~ou;'e~ histo~'), and beauty ATTACHMENT D Phone[ Date: · ...: ' ~Urgent [:]For Review - · Commen~: ,,,,o,,.: 977- o~o e;~ fi-F/- (~'~ocp [] Please Comment [2~ Please Reply [] Please Recycle Oct.i5, 2801 12:50P~1 P I EDMONT ENVIRONMENTA_ C07¥ N0,OttF ATTACHMENT D Mr. Robert Carter, Director Capital Regional Preservation Office Virginia Depm'tment of Historic Resources 19B Bollingwood Street Petersburg Virgklia 23803 RE: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District March 2, 20001 Dear Mr. Carter: The PEC was created in 1972' to protect the rural landscape of the Piedmont. For the last 28 years we have worked with Albemarle County's Southwest Mountain landholders to keep that area beautiful. Through this partnersb/p the Southwest Mountains were designated a~ a Rural Historic District. Al~o through this partnership, ahnost 7,400 acres of the District are now under permanent conse~,at/on easement. The City of Charlottesville, the University of Virgima and Albemarle County are working collaborativety to complete a new public safety radio system, One component ofth~ proposed plan is to/nstall a 125-foot tall, tmss-ty~ radio tower on Peter's Momltaili in northeastern Albemarle and within the Historic District. We are not questioning flee need for this proposed system nor the City, University and County's intention to seek tower sites that best serve it. We are, however, concerned that the decision not be made without due and appropriate consideration for any state or federal regulations that may exist regarding the location of this type of visually intrusive facility with/n a Rural Historic District Specific details regarding this proposal, are at this tithe, lam/ted to the enclosed infom~at~on. The consultm~t has' adv/sed the County that certain FCC parmneters dictate that this system be approved m~d completed on a very finite schedule. Our concern is that this implied fast-track effort will create ch'cumstances where complete consideration is not given to the finportance of the Southwest Mountains' historic desi~mtion. The Cotmty Planner, Joan McDowell, who is reviewh~g tNs project, is unaware of any federal funding for this system. However, that is not coxtfm~aed. Would you please reply with a statement regardh~g a~y state or federal criteria or regulations that the County should be aware regardfi~g this issue? I thank you in advance for your ass/stance. If there are any questions, I may be reached at 804-977-0830 or via e-mai at iwerner(D, pecva, or.~. Joan McDowell may be reached at the Albemarle County Department of Plarming and Community Development at 804-296-5823. Very truly yours, Jeffrey B. Werner Charlott~ville-Albemarle Land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Attachment CC: Joan McDowell. PEC Local Board C-overnor COMMONWEALTH vi VIRQIN [A Department of Historic Resources 2801 Ken.~ington .&venue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Jotm Paul W~rll~5~ J~ Secretary of Natural March 12, 2001 ATTACHMENT D H. Alexm~d~r Wise. Jr, Director Tel: (804) 36%2525 l~ax: (804) 367.2391 TDD: (804) 367-2386 www. dhr, state.va.u8 Jeffrey B. Werner Land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive, Suite .I Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District Dear Mr. Werner: · Thank you for your letter of March 2, 2001, with the enclosed special use permit application, requesting information on any state or federal criteria or regulations of which Albemarle County should be aware in its deliberations on the proposed construction of a Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended(NHPA), requires that State Historic Preservation Offices and the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an reasonable opportunity to comment on all federal undertakings with potential to affect historic properties. The purpose of this requirement is not to stop needed public improvements but to minimize the potential impact of any federal undertaking on historic properties through an exploration of options to avoid or mitigate such impacts. A federal undertaking is de£med to mean not only undertakings that will involve expenditure of federal funds but also undertakings that involve the granting of a federal license or permit.' If the proposed tower requires a permit or license from the FCC, then the FCC or its designee would be required to fulfill the FCC's responsibilities under the provisions of Section 106 of NHPA. Based on the information you sent us, it is not possible for our agency to determine whether or not the proposed tower will requLre an FCC license, permit or some other action by the FCC that would meet the definition of a federal undertaking under Section 106 of NHPA. While the information you provided is not sufficient for determining the degree or extent of the project's finpact on the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, visually or otherwise, the information you sent us does make clear that construction of the proposed tower would have an effect on the Southwest Mountains Rural I-kistoric District. We would recommend that the County encourage the applicant's consultant for this project to contact Cara Metz, Director, Resource Ser.vices and Review Division, Department of Historic Resources, regarding the FCC's' it{volvement in this project. She may be reached at the Department of Historic Resources, 2801 K~nsington Avenue, Richmond, VA 23221. Her telephone number is (804) 367-2323 x 105. Her e-mail address is c_n~=etz., l~_dl~.State~.va,u~, Petersburg Ogifaa 19-B Boll~gb~ook Str~ IN~erstmrg, VA 23808 Tel: (804) I~L~-Ir~0 Fax: (804} 863~161~7 Portsmouth 612 Com~ Street. 3rd Fl~or Port~mouch, VA 23704 Te~ £7§~0 Fa~ (757) S96-6712 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE P.o~oke~ vA 24013 Tel: (54o) s57-7585 Fax: (540) 857-7583 Winclxes~r 107 N. licit Street, Suit~ 208 Wi~he~r. VA 22601 Tel: (540) 7224427 Fax~ (54o) '~r,~_. 5. 200i i2:5]PM PIEDMONT ATTACHMENT D For further information on the responsibilities of:fid~i'i~l agencies under Section 106 of NI~A, visit the web site of the President's AdVisory Council' on Historic Preservation at: www,aehp.§ov Kobert A. Carter Director, Community Services Division Cc: Cara Metz, Director, Kesour~ Services and Koview Division, Department of Historic Resources COrY ATTACHMENT Ms. Cara Metz Director, Resource Se~wices and Review Division Virginia Department of Histor/c Resources 2801 Kensins~on .&venue Richmond, Virginia 23221 VIA Fax 367-2391 September 27,2001 RE: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District Dear Ms. Metz: In March of this year, we eoi~'esponded with Bob Carter about a proposal by Albemarle County to construct a 110-foot tall, truss-type radio tower on Peter's Mountain in northeastma Albemarle and within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District (3/12/01 letter attached). Much to our dismay--and despite our efforts to encourage alternatives--the County appears poised to move forward with this site. Would you please advise us as to any inquires, submissions or applications for review that have been submitted to the your office related.to this proposed tower site? Correspondingly, if your office has been contacted, would you please advise us as to the status of any review and/or pending recommendations from the DI-EK? The PEC was created in 1972 to protect the rural landscape of the Piedmont, For the last 28 years we have worked with Albemarle County's Southwest Mountain landholders to keep that area beautiful. Tbxough this partnership the Southwest Mountains were designated as a Rm'al Historic District. Also through this partnership, almost 7,400 acres of this 31,000-acre District are now under permanent conservation easement. Routes 20, 22 and 231 are designated as Virginia Byways. The City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia and Albemarle County are working collaboratively to complete a new public safety radio system. A tower at Peters Mountain is intended to be a component of that system. We are not questioning the need for this proposed system nor the City, University and County's intention to seek tower sites that best serve it. We are, however, concerned that the decision not be made without due and appropriate consideration for any state or federal regulations that ma3, exist regarding the location of this type of visually intrusive facility within a Rural Historic District. Among our concerns, but certainly not the very least, is illustrated in the text of the August 8, 2001 report by the County's consultant, "Data provided by [-DHR] confirms that the Peter's Mountain location appears to have few potentially eligible historic sites nearby." This is a Rural Historic District (emphasis added) and the conclusion ignores the value of the landscape itself. This rural landscape is considered so important that the first category outlined in the original application sent to the National Park Service addresses "the landscape" not the 270 historic sites within the District. Thomas Jefferson once wrote of'the Southwest SW Mtns., 9/27/01 Page 2 Pt~L)MON, ~NVih~ONM~Nf~.~. No.O~, COPY ATTACHMENT D Mountains, "these mountains are the Eden of the United States." The National Park Sex-vice website describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside,., [c]haracterized by undulating pastures, winding roadways, forested hills." These are images of the landscape, not braidings. This 11 O-foot tall radio tower will not.only intrude upon this landscape but, in words from the consultant's report, it will intrude upon it at a site that "offers the highest elevation in the Northeast corner of Albemarle County." One need only visit this place to see that this tower will be visible within tbJs landscape and it will be quite visible from numerous historic sites a~d contributing structures whose context relies upon this supposedly protected rural landscape. With flaese concerns, the PEC retained the services of a telecommunications consultant to assist us in: evaluating the technical issues related to the proposed tower and to evaluate and advise us on any possible alternatives that n'fight preclude the need to construct a tower within the District. In their July 17, 200 t report (!!CORRECTION August 13, 2001 Report---sent 8/13 version C.Metz on .9/28/01 !!) to us, they categorically concluded that "alternative sites [are] availabIe." The PEC will forward a copy of this report and we wish for it to become part of the inforination used by the DHR when'considering a response to the request to site a tower on the ridgeline of Peters Mountain within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District in Albemarle County. I thank you in advance for your assistance. If fiaere are any quest-ions, I may be reached at 804-977-0830 or via e-mail at i~erner(~p~ egya. org. Very truly yours, Jeffrey B. Wemer Charlottesville-Albemarle Land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive, Suite 1 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Attachment: CC: 3/12/01 letter from K. Carter, DHR Map segment of the SW Mtns, RHD Mr. Robert Carter, Director, Community Services Division, Va. DHK ATTACHMENT b James $. Gilm~ III Governor John Paul Woofl]ey, Jr. $~reta. cy of Natural Besources October 10, 2001 COMMONWEALTH o{ VIRQINIA Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, .Virginia 23221 I~thleen S, ~paiziek Director Tel,: (804] 367-2323 Fox: (804) 36%2891 TDD: (804) 367-2386 www.dkr.~ta~e.va.m Mr. Jeffrey B. Werner Piedmont Environmental Council 1111 Rose Hill Drive Sake 1 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Re: Multi-Jurisdictional Radio Communications System Albemarle County DHR File # 200t-1513 Dear Mr. Werner: Thank you for the information regarding the proposed ll0-foot multi-jurisdictional radio communications system antenna proposed by Albemarle County.. It. is our understanding from your material that the county intends to locate the truss4ype towei' on Peter's Mountain in northern Albemarle. This site is within the National Register listed Southwest Mountains Rural Histork District. We share your concern cegarding r. he potential for this facility to adversely impact the ldstoric character of the rural historic district. To date, we have not received any official notification of the project from Albelmarte County or any other applicable agency. Section i06 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulation 36 CFR 800: "Protection of Historic Properties" require that the State Historic Preservation Office and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment on the potential of federal undertakings to intpact cultural resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A "federal undertaking" is defined as a project that is, in whole or in part, federally funded or requRes a f~deral permit or license. The purpose of Section 106 is not to halt such undertakkngs but to minknize the possibility for these actions to affect historic resources. This is done tN-ough a consultation process between the federal agency,..SHPO, mad other interested pa[ties that explores options to avoid or 'm!tigat.e adverse effects .... .. 10 Cour~t~aota~ Ave. Peter~btwg, VA 23803 Tel: (B~) ~1~ F~ (~ B6~96 Pet~a~burg Office 19-B Boilln~eor ook Pe~rsbu~g. VA z~soa T~I: (god) 8111~16z0 Fax: 1804} Port. hough $12 Cou~ St, Srd Portgmouth~ VA Tel: C~5~E 396-~/07 Fax: (75'B 3~?12 P, oanok~ Office 1030 Penmar Av~,, SE Roanoke~ VA 2401;! Fa.x: (E,40) 85'/-7588 Winch ~,~r Office 107 N. l~nt St., ~03 Winch~J~'tcc, vA ~601 Faro (6,40) 200] ]2:52PM PIEDMONT ENV No. O1 ATTACHMENT D Page 2 October 10, 2001 Mr. Jeffrey B. Werner If the proposed multi-jurisdictional radio communications system antenna is licensed or permitted by the FCC, then the federal agency or its designee is required to fuifill its responsibilities under Section. 106. However, Rom the intbrma£ion you provided it is unclear if such a situation exists. We recorm:aend that.you question county officials regarding the ful~ding soume for the tower and permitting/licensing requkements for it under federa[ law in order to determine il' review and comment by our office is applicable in this case under Section 106. If you have any questions about the Section 106 review process or our commems,, please call me at (804) 367-2323. ATTACHMENT D PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and protecting thc Piedmont's rural econom~'~ natural rcsourccs, history and beaurr To: From: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors _albemarle Planning Commissioners Albemarle County Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley Albemarle County Director of Planning, Wayne Cilimberg Jeffrey B. Wemer, AICP /~-'~ Charlottesville-AlbemarletL~fid'~se Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council Date: October 4, 2001 RE: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District As you are aware, the Piedmont Environmental Council has been urging the Com/ty to evaluate and consider alternatives to locating a radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Nationall5 Registered Southwest Mountains Rural Histor/c District. There are numerous reasons for our concern, not the least of which is the decision to site a tower here will despite the best of intentions-set a precedent 'for locating communication towers that contradicts the County's current policy. This issue is so important to us that we have hired our own telecommunications consultant to assist us. The attached summary is from a statement I made to the Planning Commission on September 2, 2001. In it, I succinctly stated our concerns and what solutions we have offered. I stated that our consultant, ATC, has concluded that "alternative site and. design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives." Most importantly, I informed the Planning Commissioners what the PEC is doing: "We have forwarded RCC's report to ATC and asked them to fully assess it. Correspondingly, we have also asked them to completely reassess their conclusions. When that is completed, we will share those findings with the County and the people of the Southwest Mountains." For your review, I have attached a copy of our consultant's August 13,2001 report. Of their conclusions, we believe that only "Option 1" is valid. In any event, this option alone offers a compelling argument for alternatives. As I asked the Planning Commission, I will also ask you. Please do not rush this decision. I welcome your questions and comments. The PEC will also make our consultant available to you for a presentatioh and/or discussion, however necessary, to better explain and defend their conclusion that alternatives exist outside of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Thank you. Attachments: PEC Statement to the Albemarle County Planning Commission, dated October 2, 2001 Atlantic Technology Consultants Report to the PEC, dated August 13, 2001 H~mlqnarte~ /db~marl¢ Loudotm Orange Prince EO. Box 460 1111 Rose Hill Drive 802 Children's Center Rd., S.W. 130 West Main Street 9116 Center Street Warrenwn, VA 20188 Suite 1 Leesburg, VA 20175 Suite 206 Manassas, VA 20110 540-347-2334 Charlottesville, VA 22903 703-6694990 P.O. Box 266 703-367-0069 Fax: 540-349-9003 804-977-2033 Fax: 703-669-2213 Orange, VA 22960 Fax: 703-367-0830 Fax: 804-977-6306 540-672-0141 Fax: 540-672-6265 I (] - Rappahannock 12717 Lee Highsvay Washington, VA 22747 540-987-9441 Fax: 540-98%9443 A09:45 IN Date: To: RE: PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and pro~ecting the Piedmonf s rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty COPY October 2, 2001 Albemarle County Planning Commissioners Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District ATTACHMENT D I am Jeff Werner and I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. As you know, the City, the County and UVa are working to complete a public safety radio system. Five tower locations have been approved. Peters Mountain-in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District--is intended as the sixth. The delay at Peters is because no site has been available--not because of any opposition. We do not question this radio system. We are concerned that the decision to place a tower here will not consider the impact on the Historic District particularly when alternatives may exist. This spring, we approached the County about alternatives. After that, our consultant, ATC, workedwith the Emergency Communication Center (ECC) and their consultant, RCC, to seek solutions-not to create problems. In August, this relationship was suspended and we were informed that information sought by us would require a FOIA request. Last Monday, we learned that the County had moved forward with the acquisition of a 2-acre parcel on the ridgeline of Peters Mountain. Last Tuesday, we received a copy of RCC's report-it is dated August 8, 2001. On August 13,2001, our consultant concluded that: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage obieetives" (emphasis added). ATC concluded that alternatives exist that meet coverage requirements, that cost less than a tower at Peters and that do not impact--or set a dangerous precedent in-the Historic District: In any event, the County is moying forward with Peters Mountain having concluded that these findings are in error. Why is the PEC concerned? RCC's report states, "the Peter's Mountain location appears to have few potentially eligible historic sites nearby." This is a Rural Historic District (emphasis added) and RCC ignores the value of the landscape itself. This landscape is considered so important that the first category outlined in the original District application addresses "the landscape'' not the 270 historic sites within the District. Thomas Jefferson called this place "the Eden of the United States." The National Park Service website describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." These are images of the landscape. This tower will intrude upon this landscape and, in RCC's words, it will intrude at a site that "offers the highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous historic sites and contributing structures whose context relies upon this rural landscape. What is the PEC doing? We have forwarded RCC's report to ATC and asked them to fully assess it. Correspondingly, we have also asked them to completely reassess their conclusions. When that is completed, we will share those findings with the County and the people of the Southwest Mountains. l~i'eadqna~et.s Albemarle Loudoun Ormage Prince It/ill;am EO. Box 460 1111 Rose Hill Drive 802 Children's Center Rd., S.W. 130 West Main Street 9116 Center Street Warrenton, VA 20188 Suite 1 Lecsburg, VA 20175 Suite 206 Manassas, VA 20110 540-347-2334 Charlottesville, VA 22903 703-669-4990 P.O. Box 266 703-367-0069 Fax: 540-349-9003 804-977-2033 Fax: 703-669-2213 Orange, VA 22960 Fax: 703-367-0830 Fax: 804-977-6306 540-672-0141 ~-= F:Lx: 540-672-6265 12717 Lee H/ghw~y Washington, VA 22747 540-987-9441 Fax: 540-987-9443 ATTACHMENT D PEC/October 2, 2001 Page 2 What does the PEC want? The apphcation for this tower will be cormng to you soon. I respectfully request' that you begin to think about this now and not later. Carefully review all information. Ask hard questions. Seek the facts about alternatives. Seek clarification on the FCC deadline that seems to be driving this decision. It was known in February and as recently as July that there was no available site on Peters yet this deadline repeatedly surfaces as a reason why a decision must be made for Peters Mountain. Consider how far along this process would be if, since February, someone had been acting on the identified alternatives. It is as if the time, energy and expense have been focused on how to make this tower fit on Peters Mountain and to refute alternatives---not explore them. It is no surprise to us that our consultant's findings are being dismissed. We realize that we are ar a disadvantage. How can we fairly ask you and the Supervisors to decide between two competing and extremely technical documents? We understand that the CoUnty staffhas a responsibility to present to you what their consultant tells them. Therefore, .we most of all ask that you review this issue with a very open mind, asking a lot of questions, challenging the path of least resistance and welcoming the involvement of all interested individuals. Thank you. Jeffrey B. Werner, AICP Charlottesville-Albemarle Land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council urchase Of Pr~l~rt~ from Edo Frost ?UBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Authorize ~ Ihe purchase of 2-acre pamel located on Peters Mt. in conneclion with the 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs, TUCke~, Davis, Foley, Trank DISCUSSION: EXECUTIVE _~_AGENDA DATE: Sept~200-~ ATTACHMENT D ACTION: - INFORMATION: INFORMATION; CONSENT ,AGENDA: ACII_ ~,~N, X ATTACHMENT~_; Pur~ase A~reement REVIEWED BY: The Emergency Communications C'.~.nt~.r is in the final stages of negotiaang the a(x:lUiS~on of the 800 MHz Public Safety Radio system. Ail tower sites have been acquired by lease or ol~er agreement, with rite eXceplion of the Peter's Mt. and ~,, .,..,,,~;,J~ win4 u,~; p~u, purry ~ner CT a z-a~re parcel on Fete.rs ~ mat has b~ identified as a suitable I ~,~ "- · --- -..__,, = _ --. . -.:----.. _._:_ . . o~ unfor~t~ ?d~o ,:u, ,,mun,:uuO~ n.~ ~war ~rtcl related eob,~,,,ent at that site The_purchase r~rie~ i~ ~n ~ i-~ ~na r~_r, ' ' ' rea.,- · _ _ =*_~ ~ ...... ~ ·. ~ ......... 0 ...... ,resents a fair and ,_.son~le ~_ ,for ~e_p_.rope,_r~.. V? Code..{} 15.2-18.00 authonzes the County to purchase me property tbr mis purpose. m acquiring mis site, me c:n~m~y k acing etme request and on behalf of the Emergency Communications center and its members, including the City of Charioltesvflle and University of Virginia. RECOMM_ENOAT. I.OlY: r~:nmm,ncl~ thM ~he Board approve tile Durcha-_~_ of the Frost pro,erSt ~nd authorize the County Exec~live to e~ecute documents to_ finalize ~-._ p~chase. PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ..... ~ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGHqlA .......... (ATC # 1037-01) Smbmitted By: ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS A Member of The Atlantic Group of Companies Augus~ 13, 2001 BACKGROUND: .~ The County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia are in ~he fuml design stages for a multi-jurisdictional radio communication system. The system is to be used primarily for public safety purposes and is intended to enhance emergency communication and response tt~ughout the County. The proposed system design is based upon six (6) tower sites throughout the County. The proposed antenns sit~ utilize existing and planned antenna support structm'cs. The sites are identified as: Bucks Elbow Mountain (existing 100-foot guyed tower to be extended 20 feet); Fan Mountain (existing 120-foot guyed tower to b¢ replaced with seff-supporti.~ tower of~me height); Carters Mountain (planned 250-foot serf-supporting tower); Klockner Stadium (existing 10S-foot light tower); Emergency CommunicatiOns Center (ECC) (planmd ll0-foot serf-supporting tow~); and Peters Mountain (planned 125-foot self supporting tower). This pas Peters Iv no site a l'ac orit ,p g co.ay pp ov U 0untain site. Action on the Peters Mountain location was posrponea 0ecause mere. as inal target site on Peters Mountain is located inside a fenced area on a large parcel owned ty American. Telegraph and Telephone Company (AT&T). An alternate site located on. private l~roperty outside of the fenced AT&T compound is also being considered. An agreement that would allow construction and use of land within t~ AT&T compotmd has not been secured' Thc Pet.s Mountain site is dcsigmxl to provide radio coverage in the far northeastern region of th~ County. In addition to omnidirectional transmit and receive aatcnms, two (2) microwave antennas, mcasudng six (6) feet in diameter will be installed at t_hia location. ShoUld the Peters Motmtain site be rejected, two alternative antenna sites may be required to provide similar geographical coverage. Projeet documents report that an additional site will increase tt~ cost of tl~ proj~t by $~.2 million. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Pie. dzw~ Environmental Co~v~cil 8/13 PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM: The proposed system is an 800 MHz Ana!og~igit~ 20-~ha~, el S?ul~ast .T .r~. ed..P,~lio.. Mountain, Fan Mountain and Peters Mounta~); one (1) nucrowave relay site ~I, oocs_ner _ . ' Stadlnm) alld om (1) master contwl and dispatch facility (Emergency Communications C2ntcr). The system will communicate over a microwave network using ~ers in the 6 OHz and 10.6-11.2 OHz range. FI~BERAL REQUIREMENTS: The proposed antenna support structures ~ operat'.mg, p.eq_u~._.ncies .must ~ reg~..e~ ~ licensed pursuant to Federal CommUnication Commissioa (FCC) roles and regulations. ~s suck e~_~.in Federal laws are applicable. Tt~ National Enviwnm~ntal Policy Act of 1969 (N-EPA), delineated in Title 47 of the Code of incorporat~ emdromnental considerations into them decmoa-makmg process. ,as a ncc mg agency, the FCC requires all licensees environmental effects from its constmc~n ofantemla support structures,, _, . , effects in an environmelltal a.~~ (EA) ~ must be filed with the FCC for rew, ew. Section 1.1307 is divided into four parts. ~ 1.1307 (a) Identifies eight ($) areas Or situations that are considered environmentally: sensitive and require preparation of an EA prior to com~muctiom 1.1307(b): Requires an EA if the antenna transmitter WOuld cause exposure of workers or the general public to levels °fradi° !Seq. U~nCY~ ~r~iiat~on in, exes. ~ of ~rta~ ,-. k~ i~,idelines. These guidelines were recently re~. zec ~pom aha uroer m ,4 xJoct( No. 93-6[ FCC 96-326 (released AUg. I; 199~. 3.1.1307(¢): Allbws "an interested person" t° petition the FCC.to req.u~r_ e envk. ohm. eh ,t~ %um/ion in its d ision- : Vro s such ukt not required by the roles. The Petition must be in writing and detail ~the reasons justifying such an analysi~ The FCC then ~: * . and will eith~ require an EA or it may proceed without an Atlant~ Technology Consultants. Inc. Piedmont ~M Co~l 8/13 Pa~ 2 ~s ATTACHMENT D e~ir~-miiental ~°nsideration of that action upon its own motion.-:~ ..... project does not'fall under any ofthe ~ categories in section 1.1307, section 1,13~ states 'that the licensee may proceed with the pro~ect wimout providing any documentatiou to :he WT~. Both FCC Form G00 (Application for Mobile Radio Service AuthorLmdon) and FCC Form 854 (Application for Antenna Stmctu~ Registration) cornel- question 2g, which ~ks wheth~ the liccnsce's proposed action may have a significan~ ~lviFoPrr~-nt~l eff~"t ~ sn ~ If t~ licensee indicaIes '~,IO' to this question, no covkonmental documentation is requirCd to be filed wiIh the FCC. However, the licensee should maintain all pertinent records and be ready to provide documentation supporting i/s determination that an BA was not required for the site, in the event thai tach information is requested by the WTB pursuant to section 1.1307(d). It~ after comulfi~ thc NBPA nfi~s, a lic~mcc determines thai its proposed.'co~ion do¢~ f~ll under one of the listed categories in section 1.1307(a) or (b), thc licensee is required to notify that fact to the WTB. The licensee must ~nswer 'YBS" to question 28 on either FCC Forms 600 or 8~4, a~d almch an £Ato the form filing. Once this question is answered 'YES,' the ~li~g is treated as a ~major environmental action." 'The WTB's review of a major environmental action consists of the followi~2 sta~cs: o Initial Review: When an BA is received by the WTB (attached to either a Form 600 or a Form 854), the appropriate licensing office initially reviews the complete filing to determine whether the proposed antenna facility complies with any FAA height, location, lighting md maxking requirements, AM statbn interference coordination or other engineer/nE requirements, or any other non-environmental concerns. Acceptance Public Not/ce: The licensing off[ce then places the filing on the FCC's Public Notice (PN) for thirty days, indicating thai the application was accepted for filing as a ~major envkonmeatal action." The PN indicates the licensee's name, call sign, the market, FCC file number, the date on which the application was received, and the specific section ofthe 1.1307 category invoking the need for an EA. Review: The EA is then reviewed by the WTB's Enforcement Division, along with any comments, petitions or opposition filed against the EA duxing the 30-day PN pcrkxL 4. Finding of No Significant Impact: If, after consulting with all relevant expert federal and state agencies, the Enforcement Division detennines that the proposed project will not have a significant impact uponthe environment, the ~nforcement Division ismes its finding ofno s'~mnificant impact tTONSI). The licensing office then notifies tlz licensee that the application has been granted and issues another PN announcing the grant of the Technology Comultants, In~. P~.dmont ~al Cou~l 8/15 Page3 al8 ?/ enviro~itk/f0iZnisi~ licensee-of this finding. Pursuant tO ~hfl;130~(c) oftl~ FCC l~tt~ ~cenS~- is~ aff0rd~-aa °Pr°rtunity m ame~ ~ mop~.lio-W=luc~, _.. mlnlmi~_~_'.ei~=-etlminate environmental problems. If the licemsee's ~_-~l~plicati0n- --resolves tl~--ii:gative environmental i?act,, th~ Enforcement Divisionissues a FON51 and the aPPlication is lyanted. If thc amended application does not el~m;,st¢ tl~ environmental problem, the Enforcement Division will either recommend the denial of the aPplication or will work with.the applicant to proceed with the project upon ~on of an enviro~ impact statement (ELS). Should tie Bureau decide to proceed with the action, sections ;1.!314, '!.131'5 and 1.1317 require a notice of intent that EISs will b~ prc. parext, then a draft and final EISs bc prepared and announceA in the In addition to enviro~n~ consider',aions, SectiOn i06 °fthe Nation~! Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NI-IPA)requires th~ Stale Historic preservation Of~es (StIPO) and she Pr:sident's Advisory Council on Historic ~serVatbn 1~ given a r~nable opportunity to co~ on an i'~ und~a~.~s ~wim,th~ POt~ .to; affect historic pmpcsti~, rrior to comStmCtion, the licensee is requir~ to SUb~t t° the SHPOa detail description oftl~.., project, a ~i~ of h~toric ,~sou~ces =a, disCussiOn o~y ~s ~ ~.?.to ~a~. i.,..~t, (~any) o.h~toric wsou~s. Upo. and respo,~i All agencies w/th autho~ to p~xmit c°nstmction are required to consider the Historic Resources indicates that con.~.mctionof the Proposed tower would have an effect on. Southwest Mo.tm~. Rural Historic D~: It is'not'known ifthe County bas filed informatmn with ~ sriPO aaa ~s in ~ mia o~ TI~ Federal Aviation Admlni~ration (FAA) requires that an air h,~,rd determination be . performed for all n~w structures, unless categori~llY excluded under FAA rules and regulations. This study ex-mi-es the potential impact ~ proposed ~ ma.y have on .safe air.~vigatiom T~ VAA m~y ,,.~ ~ ~eig~ a~ or potenti,1 hazard. An air hazard detcmination Ms'not be~n performed for this she so it ~s not known if lighling and/or other makings are req~d. ' - ALBEMARLe. COUNTY PERSONAL WIREI.F-SS SERVICE FACILITII~S POLICY: The development of wireless communication facilities falls under applicable sections of the County's zoning orSi,,~nt'~, comprehensive plan ~ Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy --. -- - lishes licies and' ide~es to be a lied by the County when (WSFP)_ T~wsrr esta~ po .-, ,.~ gu::,.,.,. ,~ :, ,pr . . .., ... the deployment of required infrastructure ~ :eq~Pment. :It is hrcended to estaonsn gmamg principles that would minlmi?e impacts asS°C~texl With wireless infrastnicture development, .4tlantic rechnolo~ Comuhan:, Inc. Piedmont ~al Cou~il 8/13 Page 4 al8 ATTACHMENT D AI~IC County is vis~ility~" -Tl~-~licyidentifie~ "Avo_idanc¢ Areas." Avoidunc~ defined as locatiom throughout the County_where wireless facilities should not be sited dUe'to their visibility. Avoide~nce Areas inehu!e_ ..~c_highways, scenic river~, Virginia by.ways, national lbrests, historic districts,-agricUltUral/forestal districts and conservation easements ...... Wireless facilities are not prohibked in tliese:area~--however the policy stipulates that applications for wireless facilities be denied unless "mitigated, sited, located and designed so as to minimize visibility". Under the policy, antenna support stmctta, e$ are not to be located on PETERS MOUNTAIN SITE: The Peters Motmtaia site is located ia the Southwest Mom Rural Historic District (SMRilD) which places it in an Avoidance Area. The SMRHD has many significam natm~ ~.~ni~ ~_na h~torica[ r~gourc¢~ aI~ is listed in th~ Virg~ Land.trifle l~gigt~l' and the National R~ist~ of Historic Pla~s. Several locations within and outside the AT&T compound are apparently under e°nsideration- The AT&T compound comprisos a large cknaSng on the plateau-like peak of Peters Mountain. The proposed tower location within the compound is at a ground elevation of approximately 1,540 f~t above mean sea level and is one of the highost points in the gouthwe~-t Mountaing The AT&I' compound is surrounded by large, private, forested parcels. A relatively small clearing of trees is located south of tho compound. The nearest residence is located adjacent to the private access road to the AT&T facility, just below the clearing. The area surrounding the proposed ~ is ~ and J-Solated in 0]:~. A "balloon test, was conducted on May 15, 2001 at a site on the south flank of Peters Mounlain near the clearing described above. A mobile communications facility, with telescoping tower, was used to simulate the proposed 125-foot structure (see Exhibit 1). The balloon could be ,seen fromRoute 231, a scenic Virginia By-Way. It is reported to have been seen also from Route 20, anothez scenic Virginia By-Way. It could also be seen from a number ofprivate property locations inthe area. Given the lack of~mml screening (i.e., matur~ trc~s) around the base of the sa-actu~ a 125-foot lattice tower at this location would be quite prominent. ALTERNATIVE SITES.: In lieu of the Peters Mountain site, two altcmativc sites will be' ne~lcd to provide coverage, in thc no~ region of the county. Topographically, the Southwest Momataln.< divides the region ia half. As a result, a site is needed northwest and southeast of the Southwest Mountain< in order to achieve coverage requirements. Atlantic Techr~logy Comultants. Piedmont Environmental Ctnmcil 8/13 Page 5 al8 Propagation analysis indicates that the composite coverage from the ~ck si~e (150 feet above ground level (AGL)) and the Piney Mountain sffe (95 feet AGL)(see Exh'bit 2) provides nearly equivalent coverage within the County compared with the Peters Mountain site (see Ex]~it 3). Thz most aignificant difference in coverage pattern is that the signal from Peters Mouatain extends far beyond thc County border into Fluvanna, Orate, Louisa ar~ Green counties. The effect ofthi.~ is not fully known, but it clearly raises the potential for radio int~ ~robhns in -~igh~ori~ counties: Exhibit 4) ~ very effectiVe in the~nOrtheast region of the County. Poor coverage in other areas of the county are not co~ed for by tl~ Peters Mountain site. In comPaHs°n, the combination 'ofBueks Elbow, Fan, Carters and Peters shoWS a slightly stronger signal thto~m the re .o,n Co y. A siae- !m ta s rong adja t counties. While th~ effect can be limited through Wel1-~ngine~r~ antenna system.~ the effort It should be not~i that the pmpa~ation raod¢ls used in this analysis arc thc "Talk Back" from a small, ~-d-held radio to the wansmitter. Antenna patterns, power levels and frequencies provided by the County and its consultant Were'utilized in the analysis. The various cobra in the ex~u'bits represem s/gaal strength. Areas co!o~ ~'Yeliow and green represem signal levels that are generally considered acceptable. Areas colored blte, gray and wh/te are generally unacceptable. The advantages to the Piney-Whiflock approach a'e that it utiliTes existing structures outside the SMRHD and does not require the construction of a new 125-foot tower on Peters.Mountain,. resu~ti~ in a $2~0,000 sa~.~ in Co--On ~st:, An exhaustive s~.rch of thc az-ca did not idcntif7 any oth~ struaums capable of satisfying the system requirements. However, numewusSites located outside the historic district could.be- developed to meet the coverage needs. TOWER DESIGN OPTIONS: Several options now exist to disguise antenna support stmctuff~ D/~guising towers and antennas is ..~ mm~y r~ferr~ to as "~tea~". commo~n examples of ~tealth techniques are ~les, silos and artificial pine trees. Ste~alth techniques are only effectiw when accomplished ~-ough the use of forms and material that are Cbamcterhtic of the settln~, Atlantic rechaolo~ Consultants, lnc~ Pievb~nl F. aviro~ Co~il 8/l$ Page 6 of 8 Another stealth application is a tree pole. This approach cm be quite effective and convincing in certain situations. For example, a stealth pine tree is discretely located on the grounds of Mount Vernon along the shore of the Potomac River. However, not all applications are as effective. Most stealfla trees are desi~o~d to look Iike evergreens, thus ~ are more-effective when plac~ wlth~n a grove of conifers. Stealth trees that significantly extend above the tree line tend to be conspicuous. The numb~ of tree limbs and the typ~ of bark (e.g., psi.t, mbberiz~ application) will ~ the effectiv~ms~ RECOMMENDATIONS,,. ~ The County's policy for wireless service facilities establishes clear guidelines for mitigating impacts associated with this type of clevelopment. The County, in proposing a 125-foot Lattice tower on Peters Mountain, disregards their own wireless facilities policy. The Peters Mountain site is Ioeated in an Avoidance Area, is prominently sited on a h~gh ridge-top, and fails to incorporate any measures that could potentially mitigate the visual impacts associated with thl.q site. Notwithstanding, coverage is needed in the northeast region of the County. Alternative sites and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives. Therefore, we recommend thai tha following options be considered: Option 1 - Utili?¢ tl~ Piney Mountain and Whitlock sites in lieu oftha Peters Mountain site. This approach would elimin~ the need to develop a new tower in the SMRHD, totally eliminating adverse visuaI impacts on the District. A policy goal ofthe County is to utilize co-location to the mum extent possible. By utilizing existing structures, the number of new towers is reduced resultin~o in a gross savings of $250,000 in conmmation cost. Propagation analysis verifies that system perfo~e is not comlxomi~d through ~ approach. Redundancy issues can be addressed through the employment of land-lines Additional costs associated with the dcvdopmcat ora seventh site are off-set in part by the construction cost savings associated with Peters Mountain. Option 2 - Develop new sites, east and west of the SMRHD in lieu of the Peters Mo-~i- site. This option would move the structure out of the historic distr~ but would slLm~flcantly increase thc project costs. Numerous sites exist-throughout the County that could be developed. Any new development should be designed to mlnimi?c visual im,mlgts ~d incorporate stealth techniques as descn~ in Option 3. At~ T~imoiogy Comuitant~, Inc. Pied~nt Environmental Ctn~cil 8/13 Page 7 of 8 -__o~Ii~~ feam~ tO disguise the pwposc~-~$~foo~ ~'on Re~tUest the Coumy to engage a licensed architect specializing in the blending of ~~ struaures into natural landscape environments. (Perhaps the University of Vk~j;r,i,,'_S~_._.hoo!ofArchit_ecture would be willing to.provide._ a.ssistanc~c.)_' Any_design shouldbe r~quired lo receive Archkectural Review Boardappro__valand~_included in the section 106 review pwcess. Though worthy of consideration, the stmaure out of the SMRHD and is suggested here only in the case that Options 1 and Atlantic Technology Conrulttmts, Inc. Pie~bnont Environmental Cot~cil 8/13 Page 8 of 8 PEC TEL :80zl Oct 0t'0! 11 PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ATTACHMENT D FAX I page of I Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director, Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Molntirc Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 VIA Fax 97~.-4035 October l, 2001 Proposed Public Safety Radio Tow~ on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains RIID Dear Wayne: As you well know, thc City, thc University of Virginia and the County are working collaborativcly to complete a new 800-MHz public safety radio system. Five facility locations have been approved and arc moving forward. A tower at Peters Mountain was intended m be a component of that system but the application was withdrawn in March when no site could be obtained. Early last week, we were informed of the County's intention to again move for, yard with a Peters Mountain site and that they have acquired an option on a 2-acre parcel at thc ridgeline of Peters Mountain. Peters Mountain is the tallest peak within the Nationally Registered Southwest MOuntahzs Rural Historic District. As you know, the PEC has a long and very strong relationship with the landovmers m the SW Mountains. We are particularly con, creed about any proposal that may impact the Historic District. This letter, however, is not intended as a positim~ statement from the PEC but a modest request for information about the pending review process for this site. It is imperative that the PEC stays informed about the scheduled reviews and public hearing dates. I respectfully request that~ifat all ' _. , planner assigned to this anDlicatio ,,T ....... , ....... : . : . possible you a~k the .-,- n to r,~o~ ~,,,,~ a~ ann geep me miormed about the critical dates. I thank you in advance for your assistance on this. V~n~ t~ly yours, ' ~,fJharl~tt~ville-Al~emarle Land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental CounCil Phone: 434-977-0830 Fax: 434-977-6306 e-mail: jwemer~pecva.org 130 West Main &'~rcct 9116 C~n~ $~ec~ 12217 la-e Highway ~ 2~ M~a~, VA 20110 Wa~hing~n, VA 22747 P.O. Box ~ 703-367-006~ Om~ VA 22960 ATTACHMENT E To~ From- Date; Stephen, Stephen Wal]er, Plam~er ~cia Joseph ~ Peter's Moanmin Tower Work Session Questions FAX IVIES SAGE Joseph November 15, 2001 I understand that during the Work Session this evening, the Plmaning Commission will address my questions they receive in written form concerning the tower. Attached you will find a copy of the questions posed by the Southwest Mountains Coalition, a x}eighborhood orgoniz~_Xion_ Please forward these questions to the Chairman of the Planning Comm/ssion, Dems Rooker and appropriate members of staff. Thank you for your assistance. ifyou'have quest{om, please contact me. i1-15-01 A10:49 ,, MardaJor~ph * 481 Clarks Tra~ * Keswie2q Virgixtia 22947 * Phone 804-984-4199 F~x 804-984~3098 * Email marcia481~eaxthlink_net ATTACHMENTE SOuthwest f4ountains Coalition Questions Concerning Construction of a Communication Tower on Peter's Mountain November 15~ 2001 1) Why is this tower proposed on a site identified by Albemarle County as an "Avoidance Area" in its Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy? 2) Why is this tower proposed on a site that is identified as an area defined as a scenic resource in the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan? 3) Why were alternative sites not seriously researched and considered by the County? 4) How will the County be able to deny any other proposed tower designs that ignore the Personal Wireless Facilities Policy? 5) Why was there no citizen input during the initial planning process of this communication system? 6) Why did the County approve the Special Use Permit for the other towers in this system six months ago if the entire system depends upon siting a tower on Peter's Mountain? 7) 8) Why couldn't the system be approved in its entirety? Why was this done piecemeal? ATTACHMENT E 6478 Gordonsville Road Keswick, VA 22947 Nov. 14, 2001 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Zoning exception for communications tower on Peter's Mountain Dear Sir, I am writing to express my opposition to granting a zoning exception for construction of a 110-foot (plus a 15-foot antenna) telecommunications tower atop Peter's Mountain. Such a tower would be visible for miles along Route 231, a road desismated a Scenic Byway by the State of Vkginia, as well as other scenic roads in the area. A tower looming over the landscape would spoil the beauty of the skyline of the Southwest Mountains for people from all walks of life, those who live in the communiiy as well as those who visit the area as sightseers. The area within sight of the top of Peter's Mountain is also part of the Southwest Mountains Historic District, created to preserve the rural character of the land. A steel tower in no way enhances the rural character of the District or its historic value. Homeowners along roads in proximity to Peter's Mountain do their share to preserve the beauty of the area for public enjoyment. A number of properties have voluntarily been put under conservation easement. It makes no sense for the county to encourage land preservation at the base of the mountain and then cap the peak with a very tall and intrusive steel tower. Surely the county can do its share to protect this area from encroachment by a highly visible industrial structure. Granting a zoning exception for a tower will likely have a negative impact on the conservation easement program throughout the county. Why should landowners protect the land through conservation easement when the county negates that protection by granting an exception for commercial construction on adjacent land? I understand that there is a need for telecommunications for emergency services. However, that need can be met without placing such an intrusive structure on a site that negatively impacts so many people. Alternative sites are available that will serve the local area and will not likely require a zoning exception. We recently moved to the area of the Southwest Mountains because of the beauty of the skyline, the absence of commercial development, and protection of the county's comprehensive plan for the amenities we value. I believe many people consider this area desirable and invest here for the same reasons. The outline of a steel tower visible for miles will in no way enhance the value of properties along these roadways, but instead will degrade the very features that attract people here. I urge you to refuse the request for this zoning exception and select an alternative site that offers a communications solution for emergency services with less negative impact on landowners and the general public. Sincerely, Judith'~mm~r'~~ ~' ' ?~om e and William R. Sommer c_ c. C ,7.? ATTACHMENT E Name: Concern: AddreSs: Phone number: Harold E. YOung, Jr., M.D. Resident of Peter's Mountain 3816 Vineyard Road, Barboursville, VA 540.832.2222 22923 Questions: Since Peters Mountain is one of Albemarle County's largest areas to be protected by conservation easements, why are you ignoring the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority Deed of Easement which states that a conservation easement "assures that Albemarle County's resources are protected and efficiently used, establishes and preserves open- space, preserves the rural character of Albemarle County, and furthers the goals of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to protect Albemarle County's natural, scenic and historic resources, promote the continuation of a viable agricultural and forestal industry and resource base?".' Why did you secretly agree to pay nearly four times the. appraised value for the Frost property when governmental agencies are supposed to pay with public funds no more than the fair market value for land acquired? Why should UVa refuse to allow a public safety tower on Observatory Mountain, which has not protected ordinances that would be broken as is the case with Peters Mountain? Why wasn't a six-foot balloon used as Steve Waller suggested in site testing rather than a balloon barely 20 inches to more accurately represent the actual size of the structure visible? Why does County representative Sergeant Richard Martin deceptively exaggerate the visibility of the AT&T Peters Mountain compound When all the AT&T structures are below the tree line, thus not interrupting the beautiful ridge top skyline of Peters Mountain as an actual tower would do? Why does Sergeant Martin deceptively portray to members of the plarming department that the tree growth will shield tower visibility when it is not the first 60 feet of tower that will destroy the aesthetic value of Peters Mountain but rather the last 50 feet protruding well above the ridgetop treeline with its six-foot dishes? Are you aware that Sergeant Martin openly discusses national security functions concerning the AT&T compound and has assisted others in an attempt to photograph structures within the secure area of AT&T on Peters Mountain? /67 ATTACHMENT E Why did you assure me two or three years ago at the Goodlow Mountain Tower hearings that the very protected Goodlow-Peters Mountain area would not become a multi-tower site such as Carters Mountain, then actively pursue this large tower placement in the very area you knew was protected? Why have Wayne Campagna and other County representatives ignored statements by RCC consultants, witnessed by me, that Piney Mountain would definitely work as an alternative site to Peters Mountain in conjunction with one to two eastern locations? 10. Since the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District on Peters Mountain is one of the largest and oldest AFD's in Albemarle County, why do you not honor the purpose of the Virginia Agricultural and Forest Districts Act which is "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes (Sec. 15.1-1507 Virginia Code)? 11. If a county tower were placed on Peters Mountain, would you develop an ordinance that states that there would be no discharge of firearms whatsoever on this small, two-acre County parcel, since it is surrounded by private property, joins a paved road and adjoins the AT&T property where no firearms are allowed? 12. Do you plan to obtain an archeological impact study on the effect of a Peters Mountain tower since this area has multiple rare prehistoric, Native American sites and structures that need to be protected? 13. As administrators in various positions of power, do you care enough about Albemarle County and the thousands of people who enjoy the view of Peters Mountain on a daily basis to place this proposed tower on acceptable alternative sites, or will you ignore the many legal ordinances, several of which were adopted by Albemarle County itself, that protect .areas such as Peters Mountain? G.N. & M.H. HEERTJE/NETTEK 6737 Gordonsville Rd. Gordonsville, VA 22942 United States of America ATTACHMENT E Stephen Waller Tower Planner, Department of Planning 401 Mclntire Rd., Rm 218 Charlottesville, Virginia. 22902 Re: Communication Tower Proposed for Peter's Mountain October 28, 2001 Dear Mr. Waller: We support the need for a tower. However, we strongly oppose the current proposed location. Therefore we would like to suggest some alternative locations that would not impact the views of the SW mountains at route 22, 20 and 231. The Southwest Mountains in Albemarle County is one of the most scenic areas in the country. Route 231 is often highlighted in travel books and is considered amongst the top three scenic highways in America. This is so because many people who own large parcels of land have placed their properties under conservation easement. They have given this to the county, which serves as a source of revenue for the county. Tourism contributes currency collected by businesses and governments in Albemarle County. The ACE program is currently funded by the Board of Supervisors to buy easements. Two of the easements currently under consideration are located in the Southwest Mountains. This is a contradictory move by the county, to purchase easements to preserve the beauty of the county, andthen to place a large lattice tower on top of one of the highest mountains of the SW range, thereby destroying the beauty it professes to value. This tower is contrary to many of the county's own policies. These include: 1. Comprehensive Plan for the area 2. Tower Policy 3. ACE Program Phone: (540) 832-0609 E-Mail: MNettel~AOL.com GHeertje(¢AOL.com 1/ Fax: (540) 832-3054 ATTACHMENT E Peggy Augustus Old Keswick Keswick, Virginia 22947 804-293-6090 Fax: 804-979-8839 October 18, 2001 Al bemarle County Board of Supervisors Honorable Ms. Sally Thomas, Supervisor Ms. Charlotte Humphris Mr. David Bowerman Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr. Mr. Charles Martin Mr. Walter Perkins 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower in the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District Dear Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.: As a merfiber of the Board of The Piedmont Environmental Council and a landowner in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, I am gravely concerned about the proposal to locate a radio tower on Peters Mountain. I strenuously oppose this tower site and implore you to consider alternatives to sitting this facility within the Nationally Registered Rural Historic District. I do not question the new public safety radio system of which this tower is part. However, the design and placement of this tower is in direct contradiction to the County's Tower Policy and the Comprehensive-Plan's Mountaintop Protection provisions. The independent consultant hired by the PEC concluded, "alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives." I am concerned that the decision to place this tower on Peters Mountain threatens this District. ATTACHMENT E This is.a Rural Historic. District. This landscape is considered so important that the fh'st category outlined in the original District application addressed "the landscape" not the 270 historic sites within the District. Thomas Jefferson called this'place "the Eden of the United States." The National Park Service website describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." These are images of the landscape. This tower will intrude upon this landscape at a site that "offers the highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." This tower will be visible from two State Scenic Byways and from numerous historic sites and contributing structures, including my own, whose context relier upon .this beautiful rural landscape. Through parmership of the PEC with local landowners, almost 7,400 acres of this 31,000-acre District are now under permanent conservation easement and many more are in the process. Routes 20, 22 and 231 that traverse the east and west sides of the District are designated as Virginia Byways. The County went to ~eat len~hs to create and adopt a tower policy. The PEC has a stated policy to protect the rural areas and important cultural and historical resources: It has a Mountaintop protection plan. All of these intended to protect the County from potentially detrimental impacts of development on our County's proven asset: it's natural beauty. County residents have supported you and the enforcement of these policies as a way to maintain our distinctly beautiful and desirable quality of life. You now seem quite willing to ignore your own policy and I am afraid that there may be unanticipated consequences of this policy shift if and when it is interpreted for application elsewhere in the County. I hope you will take time to rethink what I believe has been a very narrow-minded position which I believe could rain Albemarle County forever. Sincerely, Peggy Augustus Tracey Hopper Jared Loewenstein Margaret Pickart Stephen Waller Marc Holma Rob Nieweg Cell Towers FAQ & Form ATTACHMENT F Environmental RevieW Cell Tower Review Process and Application The application for review of cell tower projects can be found below the following the list of frequently asked questions. To expedite the cell tower application review process, please read the questions and their answers before submitting an application. Why must historic resources be considered when constructing a cell tower? Construction of cell towers may have significant visual impacts on historic districts and structures and may destroy archeological sites. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses and certifications for such facilities are federal actions subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 106 of the Nation al Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that federal agencies take into account the effect of their projects on historic properties and give another federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an opportunity to comment. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (in Virginia this is the Department of Historic Resources) is the key to most projects that are reviewed. The FCC has passed the responsibility for carrying out most steps of the Section 106 process on to cell carriers. FCC regulations for compliance with NEPA are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Subchapter A, Part 1, Subpart I Procedures Implementing the National EnvironmentaI.Pblicy Act of 1969 (47 CFR Part 1.1301 to 1.1309). The references to historic preservation are found at 47 CFR Part 1.1307 (a)(4), which identifies facilities that may affect properties on or eligible for the National Register of Histodc Places as potentially requiring NEPA compliance (including preparation of an Environmental Assessment by the applicant). Does the FCC have guidance on NEPA and http://state.v/ipnet.org/dhr/review/sect 106 celltower.htm 11/19/01 ATTACHMENT F VIRGNIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW FORM This application may be completed for all projects that will be federally funded, licensed, or assisted. Allow 30 days from receipt for the review of a project. All information on the form must be completed before revieWof a project can begin. DHR Use Only Date Received: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project Name: 2. Project Location (City or County): 3. Federal Agency (providing funding, assistance, license, or permit): 0 Agency Contact Person, Address, and Phone: Other Federal Agencies involved (include names and addresses of contacts): 6. Name and Firm of Applicant: 7. Address and Phone Number of Applicant: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION A photocopy of a 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle, or a clearly labeled portion thereof, showing the exact boundaries of the project area must be attached to the application. The map should not be reduced or enlarged. 8. USGS Quadrangle Name: 10. Number of acres included in the project: · Has this project been previously reviewed by the DHR? Yes: __ No: Do Not Know: (Ifyes, give the DHR file no., iflmown ~ 11. Have any architectural or archaeological surveys of the area been conducted? ATTACHMENTF 12. Yes: No: Do Not Know.' (If yes, list author, title, date of the report Project Description A_ Explain any ground disturbance that might occur (e.g. excavating for sewer or utility installations, digging footings, grading roads, or.developing erosion controls). Describe existing land use within the project area (e.g. plowed, residential, forest, etc.). Mention any previous modifications (e.g. grading, plowing, filling). Are any stmctures more than 50 years old within or adjacent to the project area? Yes: No: Do Not Know: (A photograph of each stmcture over 50 years of age keyed to the USGS quad within or adjacent to the project area must be submitted.) Does the project involve the rehabilitation, alteration, removal, or demolition of any structure, building, designed site (e.g. park, cemetery), or district that is 50 years or older? Yes: No: Do Not Know: (If yes, describe extent of alterations to property. Attach additional page(s) if necessary.) To the best of my knowledge, I have accurately described the proposed project and its likely impacts. Signature of Applicant/Agent Date When completed, send this form and all required attachments to the address below. If you have any questions, please contact the Division of Resource Services and Review at (804) 367-2323, ext. 106. Deparunent of Historic Resources Division of Resource Services and Review 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 This space for DHR response only: Comments Signature Date Phone Number DHR File No. ATTACHMENT F VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES CELL TOWER REVIEW FORM Please complete one form for each proposed tower and mail to: Resources Services and Review, Department of Historic Resources, 2801 Kensig. gton Avenue, Richmond, VA, 23221. All attachments such as the project map, results of archives search (including inventory forms), photographs of any other structures in the area of potential effect more than 50 years of age and photosimulafions must accompany form. Review does not begin until ali information is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Name (one or two word identifier): Project Location (city or county): Carrier (Sprint, Verizon, SunCom, etc.): Preparer's Name: Preparer's Address: Height (in feet) & type of tower (lattice, monopole) to be constructed: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES: Were any properties located during the archives search? Yes: No: If yes, please list and attach photo simulations Are there other structures more than 50 years old within the APE? Yes: If yes, please give photo identifier and attach photosimulations No~ This space for DHR response only: Additional information needed: Based on the information provided, we find that: No historic properties will be affected No adverse effect Adverse effect Signature: Phone: (804) 367-2323, ext. Date: DHR File No.: PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON SP-2001-048 REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO PROJECT (PETERS MTN)(SIGNS #77 & 78) 2 NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) 18 19 2O RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: /-- ~-~0~)~ Agenda Item #: ~ o,~o~, 2002 Clerk's Initials: Citizens for Albemarle is in favor of upgrading emergency telecommunications facilities in our community; among other reasons, we believe this will promote shorter response times for police, fire and rescue personnel in locating and arriving at accidents and other life-threatening situations. Citizens for Albemarle would like to voice its opposition, however, to the proposed siting of an emergency radio transmitting tower on Peters Mountain. We believe that, while the choice of the Peters Mountain site may have been arrived at for practical reasons, there are more compel- ling reasons why the tower should not be placed there. First, Peters Mountain lies within the Southwest Mountains Historical District. The erection of a 100-foot-plus transmitting tower will create an egregious and obtrusive unnatural visual con- tamination of the Southwest Mountains viewscape that is entirely out of keeping with the con- cept and purpose of the historical district.-In addition, the height of the tower and its proximity to the _- - _ - rspace most certainly will mandate that it be //qighted at night, further adding to the.vii.~a/,.c~n!~inafi~~ ~ith~ :~istoric District. Second, there exists at least one ~)iabie'~ltemative site f6f~li¢'emergency tower on Piney Mountain, which does not lie w~thm the Hist0hC/il Digtrict a15d ~'hi~h already has two lighted electronic facility towers in place on its summit, thus mitigating the visual impact of any additional, adjacent structure. Citizens for Albemarle argues that any additional installation costs attendant with erecting the emergency communi~at~0/~ to~vei~.611 ,~e Piney Mountain site are offset by the conservation of the visual character of the' Soutl~we~: ~'ountains Historical District, a geologic and historic region that we can all enjoy and which, along with other features of the Albemarle landscape, continues to make this community and its unparalleled enCircling natural attractiveness such a uniquely desirable place to live and to visit. It is important to note here that this community has long taken pride in, and der!yes revenue from, being an important tourist attraction. Finally, the proposed site of the tower on Peter's'Mouiit, airi sits astride a predominantly north-south range of hills (The Southwest Mountains)'at an ~eleVation of more than 2000 feet above sea level. Such geologic features are rOtlf{h~i~ ~S~/ilI~ m},~;atory birds for navigation purposes, even at night, and obtruding man-made structures.'such as towers take a heavy toll through collisions with guy wires and the' ~d~6r 'Structures themselwes. Thus, the Peter's Moutain site is an especially critical one in terms of}ts P6tentiii[ impact' 0~;~rtain forms of wildlife. In conclusion, modem telecommuni~at~0ns~hnologY is b0~:s0phisticated and flexible, and Citizens for Albemarle believes that altemati;ces'f6:' "~-- "the Peter s'MS~antain site are available. We urge you to reject the proposed siting of the emergenCy c0mmuifi6ati0ns tower on Peter's JAN- 8-02 TUE 4:01 PM JIM BALLHEIM FAX NO, 8042932514 P, 2 JAN- 8-02 TUE 410~ PM JIM BALLHEIM FAX NO 80¢2~B~25I¢ P, B JAN- 8-02 TUB 4:04 PM JIM BALLHEIM FAX NO, 8042932514 P 4 UVA VIRGINIA January 7, 2002 The Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: SP-2001-048 Regional Public Safety Radio Project (Peters Mountain) Tax Map 50, Parcel 1D Dear Ms. Thomas: In preparation for the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 9, in which the Board will consider the application by the regional Emergency Communications Center (ECC) for a Special Use Permit to erect a radio tower on Peter's Mountain, ! am writing to set forth the ECC Management Board's position on the conditions for the emergency communications tower that were proposed by the County Planning Commission. Attached to this letter is correspondence from Wayne Campagna ofthe ECC staffto Motorola, the system vendor, outlining the actions taken by the Planning Commission at its most recent meeting regarding the Special Use Permit. This letter requests that Motorola evaluate various changes in the tower, microwave and "RF" antennae heights to determine if k would be possible to lower any of those heights further without having a detrimental effect on the overall system coverage. In addition, it asks Motorola to clarify the need for a 36 inch monopole base. A member of the Planning Commission has sought to clarify that the Planning Commission's request for evaluation of the tower height was not limited to modifications that would avoid a detrimental effect on coverage. This member states that it is assumed that some adverse detrimental effects to coverage would result from any modifications, but that the Board should be able to evaluate those effects against other considerations, such as protectiOn of the scenic and historic resources of the area. While we would not disagree with the logic of balancing various impacts in general, the ECC Management Board does not support any change in the Peter's Mountain tower height and design that reduces system coverage for reasons outlined below. The ECC previously conducted the review of the tower height requested by the Planning Commission. When the Peters Mountain AT&T site was first considered, it was determined a The Honorable Sally H. Thomas January 7, 2001 Page 2 tower height of 220' was required for a viable microwave path to the ECC, but additional analysis by ECC stafl~ RCC Consultants, Inc. (RCC) and Motorola revealed that if one of the light poles at Klockner Stadium could be used as a microwave relay, then the height could be reduced to 125'. The University agreed to allow the Klockner light pole to be used for this purpose. When agreement with AT&T could not be reached, the Peters Mountain 50-1D site was then identified. Due to differences in ground elevation between this site and the AT&T site, additional analysis was undertaken by RCC and Motorola to determine if the tower height could be reduced further fi.om the then current height of 125' without having any detrimental effect on system coverage. This analysis was performed in order to ensure that the requested height on the Special Use Permit application was the lowest height possible without unreasonably compromising coverage. This analysis concluded that the tower height could be reduced an additional 15' to 110' and the two microwave antennae could be lowered an additional 15' as well. While the ECC has always been supportive of minimizing the heights of towers in recognition of County tower policies, the ECC must also insure the minimum coverage levels required are in fact met to assure the health, safety and welfare of both our citizens and emergency responders. As Motorola's letter (attached) indicates, one further change can be implemented that will not affect the overall system coverage because the microwave units and antennae will remain at the same height as proposed to the Planning Commission. The upper antennae were proposed to attach to the tower at the 105' height, with an additional five feet of tower above the attachment. With the modification proposed by Motorola of lowering the height of the tower pole to 105', the antennae will be attached to the very top of the tower, still at the 105' height. Motorola has assured us that the tower and antennae heights may not be lowered any further without causing interference in the radio transmission system. A taller tower would be better fi.om a system perspective, but taking into consideration other factors including the historic and scenic nature of Peter's Mountain, the height of 105' for the monopole, and 125' total height of pole and antennae is a compromise that the ECC and Motorola believe will be acceptable. The change in the height of the monopole to 105', if approved by the Board of Supervisors, will require a change to condition number 4 proposed by the Planning Commission. Condition number 4 specifies that the antennae may not extend more than 15 feet above the top of the pole. In order to lower the tower pole to 105', the antennae must extend twenty (20) feet above the top of the pole. This change will not change the overall height of the pole and antennae fi.om ground level to antennae tip. The combined height of tower pole and antennae above the tower will be 125 feet. Please note that Motorola did not agree to a smaller diameter monopole than the 36" diameter proposed by the ECC. Finally, the Planning Commission added as a condition of approval that the ECC make. all reasonable efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement strategies (i.e., paint their facility a color different than white) to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T site on Peters Mountain (proposed condition number 9). The Management Board of the ECC does not believe that this The Honorable Sally H. Thomas January 7, 2001 Page 3 condition is within the authority of the Planning Commission to require of an applicant as it does not relate to the land use decision at issue, and urges the Board of Supervisors to remove this requirement as a condition for approval of the Peter's Mountain tower. The visibility of the AT&T facility is an issue for the County to handle, not the ECC. However, Tom Hanson, Executive Director of the Emergency Communications Center, has agreed to prepare a letter to be sent to the Operations Manager of the AT&T facility on Peters Mountain requesting that they consider "implementing strategies to reduce visibility of the current AT&T site". The letter will require approval of the ECC Management Board before it is sent. The ECC does not intend to take any further action with respect to the visibility of the AT&T facility. On behalf of the ECC Management Board, I urge the Board of Supervisors to support the construction ofan emergency.communications tower on Peter's Mountain that serves the needs of the community, including the men and women who are on the fi'ont lines: our fire, police and rescue workers, as well as our citizens. Chairman, ECC Management Board CC: ECC Management Board Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney 800 MHz Contract Committee Tom Hanson, Director Wayne Campagna, Project Director Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Albemarle County Planning Department Stephen Waller, Planner, Albemarle County Planning Department D~.~-mber 21, 2001 UVA VIRGINIA Mr. David $. Dip Senior Account Manager Motorola 2121 Boardman Lane Richmond, Virginia 23233 Dear David: As you know, the Albemarle County Planning Commission at their meeting this past Tuesday recommended by a 6-1 vote that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's approve the Emergency Communications Center application for a Public Safety Radio Communications Tower on Peters Mountain for the regional radio communications project. The supervisor's in addition to the public hearing scheduled for January 9, 2002, will consider their recommendation. However, as part of their recommendation the Planning Commission has directed the ECC as the applicant to respond to the following four items and report those findings to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by the January 9, 2002 meeting. Those items are: Conduct additioosl radio "RF" propagation analysis at 5' increments between the proposed tower height of 110' and the top of the trees at the tower site to determine ffthe radio tower and or antenna can be lowered any further from the current planned heights without having any adverse detrimental affects on the overall system coverage that has been identified and established. Particularly, coverage in the City, University and Urban Ring as well as the County. Can the proposed tower height be lowered from 110' to 105' without creating any adverse affect on system coverage or tower integrity? This is the height where the base of the 800 MHz "RF" Antenna is planned to be mounted. This should result in the tips of the "RF" antenna still being located at a height of 125'. Conduct additional analysis to determine if the microwave antennae planned for this tower can be lowered any further from their proposed tower centerline heights of 95' and 85' without having any adverse affect on the overall end-to-end system availability criteria between any two points of 99.9999% or better. Conduct additional review and analysis of the monopole tower recommended by the Plamaing Commission in lieu of the proposed self-supporting (lattice) tower for this location, and determine if the identified base diameter of 36" can be reduced to 30" without adversely affecting the referenced standards and tower specifications identified in Section 8 of the Albemarle County/ECC RFP 98-29. Charlottesville - UVA - Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 (434) 970-1098 After discussing this matter with RCC Consultant's, Inc. it was det~mined that it would be more appropriate for Motorola to address these items Since Motorola will have the ultimate responsibility of guaranteeing the coverage performance and reliability of the overall system design proposed. It is important that Motomla's response to tl~s matter be received by January 2, 2002, so it can be presented to the supervisor's in a timely fashion. The appropriate representatives of Motorola should also plan to attend the January 9, 2002 meeting and be prepared to respond to any - other questions that may be raised by the supervisors in reference to these items. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated very much. Should you have any questions please let me know. Wayne S. Campagna Projects Coordinator Cc: ECC Management Board Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle-County Planning Commission 800 MHz Contract Committee Tom Hanson, Director Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Albemarle County Planning Department Stephen Waller, Planner, Albemarle County Planning Department (2) MOTOROLA January 4, 2002 Mr. Wayne S. Campagna Projects Coordinator Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Wayne: This letter is in response to your December 21, 2001 letter requesting Motorola to respond to the 4 items that were raised by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Those items are: 1. Conduct additional radio "RF" propagation analysis at 5' increments to determine if the proposed tower height of 110' can be lowered. The County originally told Motorola to utilize a tower height of 125' on Peter's Mountain. Motorola lowered the tower height to 110' to assist in the County planning process. Motorola has now determined that the tower height can be lowered to 105'. The 105' height is the minimum acceptable height of the Peter's Mountain tower to guarantee the County's strict public safety coverage requirements. 2. Can the proposed 110' tower height be lowered from 110' to 105' without creating any adverse affect on the system coverage or tower integrity? The 105' height is the minimum acceptable height of the Peter's Mountain tower to guarantee the County's strict public safety coverage requirements. 3. Can the microwave antennae planned for the Peter's Mountain tower be lowered any further without having any adverse affect on the microwave system integrity? No. Motorola is partnering with Harris Microwave to provide the County With the public safety microwave subsystem. Harris Microwave performed numerous in-field path surveys to determine the exact heights of the microwave antennae. The surveys were actual field reviews of the microwave paths and not computer simulations. The proposed microwave antenna heights are the minimum guaranteed heights. MOTOROLA 4. Conduct additional review of the proposed tower base diameter of 36~. The County's public safety tower specifications require the monopole to be 36" at the base. These specifications include 80-MPH wind speed, 2.5" radial ice, and twist and sway per EIA/TIA.222.F standards for 6' diameter microwave antennae at 6 GHz. It is very important that structures supporting microwave antennae be sturdy enough to avoid twist and sway, as this will create microwave path reliability issues. The tower manufacturer has designed the smallest structure that meets these requirements.. Therefore, the base cannot be reduced from 36". As always, please let me know if you have any further questions. Motorola is more than willing to assist the County during the planning process in whatever means possible. Sincerely, MOTOROLA David J. Dip Senior Account Manager Cc: Craig Leonard, Motorola Jim Ahrens, Motorola Scott French, Motorola Charles Thomas, Motorola Ned Monroe, Motorola Jim Morgan, RCC Consultants January 7, 2002 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors RE: Proposed Peters Mountain Tower Dear Members of the Board: I do not see this issue as one ofpublic safety, which is the way it has been flamed. The real issue is the integrity of the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. The District should have been placed off limits by the County early on, as other tower sites reportedly were by other ECC parties. I doubt if anyone is not supportive of an improved emergency radio system. Certainly I am. However, after trying very hard to understand the technical issues and following the process through the Planning Commission I simply don't believe that without Peters Mountain there could not he an excellent system design. This issue seems to have taken on a life of its own. Some of the County staff seem to have been sold a bill of goods to the point that they feel they now have a personal stake in the current proposal. The way they responded to requests bom the Planning Commission for information was disrespectful at best and at times misleading. It appears the decision has been reduced to totally a financial issue. There is no longer any validity to time pressure as ECC has admitted they need an FCC extension to even build the system. It is disturbing to me, as someone who has spent 20 years involved in, frrst obta'ming the designation for the Historic District, and then being very actively involved in getting approximately 8000 acres in the District placed under permanent conservation easement, to see the County violate this because it is the "least expensive" way to go. To hear ECC threaten that the other parties would pay no more should the County recommend a two tower alternative seems to be just plain intimidation. This is especially troubling because the City and University will be the primary beneficiaries of the Peters Mountain Tower or the alternatives in the N.E. part of the County. On a final note I don't think it ever does anything positive for the publics confidence in government to have that government enact regulations and guidelines for others that they don't follow themselves. This is what you will be doing by disregarding your own tower policy. It is also likely that the D.H.R. will recommend against the tower in the Historic District. It appears you are prepared to ignore this also. This seems a high price to pay to lower the cost of a worthwhile project by maybe 10%. There are viable alternatives to the current proposal. The responsible thing for you to do is to push the project toward one of these not just choose what is cheapest and expedient. Sincerely yours, Jim Ballheim P.O. Box 253 Keswick, VA Ella Carey From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: keswickstables@webtv.net Fdday, January 04, 2002 7:30 PM Ella Carey Jeff Wemer Peters Mt. Tower To the Board of Supervisors: ! won't bore you with the multitude of reaSons why there should be no tower built on Peters Mountain because I know you know them all. What ! will say is that if the Board of Supervisors allows this tower to be built, they will be guilty of putting one more nail in the coffin of Mr. Jefferson's once magnificent Albemarle County. Sincerely, Peggy Augustus December 19, 2001 0 ~ -02202 ? ~ 2: 35 Re: Rolling Hills, Harris property on Free Union Road/Petition 12/4/01 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors The purpose of this document is to request that it be included in the case file to correct a number of false allegations and erroneous implications made in the petition of 12/4/01 presented by Mrs.Krysia C. Nelson and signed by several residents of Free Union Road(and a significant number of people from Crozet, Earlysville, Keswick and Madison, Va., that have no obvious connection to the portion of Free Union Road where the property is located). Although we unwittingly missed the two year time window during which the property could have been withdrawn from the Agricultural/Forestal District we accept, with disappointment, the ruling of the Board disallowing early withdrawal. We do not accept the idea that the people initiating the petition have a right to circulate such an arrogant document containing false statements and misguided speculations. As described to us at the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee meeting of November 27th, 2001 (which was rescheduled from a previous date due to incorrect information sent to Mr. Harris about the meeting room number), the county's definition of "financial hardship" is a very narrow one. In fact it has a "catch 22" feature in that the value of the property itself apparently implies that one should borrow money rather than sell ones property, or sell it at a substantial loss due to lack of subdivision right. The petition states that "Mr Harris is not acting in his own self interest. He is a "trojan(sic.) horse" for a developer and he is abusing the process by attempting to avail himself of an otherwise legitimate exception to the rules." Apart from the incidental fact that the second part of the quote is not quite consistent with the first part, the more significant fact is that '2Vlr. Harris is one third owner of the property and that discussions. between the three owners of the need to sell the property had been going on for sometime and the Trojan Horse metaphor is both inappropriate and offensive. With regard to the "conspiracy to subvert legitimate County land use" it seems that the properties across Free Union Road is already subdivided. The statement that "the developer is offering to pay Mr. Harris to come forward with the story of financial hardship" is insulting in its implication. Sincerely, Betty 15la~rris Barker One Third. Owner and Attendee of Both the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting November 27th, 2001 and the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting December 4th, 2001 Petition To: Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Residents of Free Union Road 12/04/01 Request of Robert Harris to prematurely withdraw his property on Free Union Road from the Agdcultural/Forestal District Mr. Harris is being ~used as a "front man" by a developer. Mr. Harris is claiming ffinancial hardship" to support his request that his preperty be prematurely withdrawn from the agdcultuml/~mstal district. In rejeclJng his request, the Agdcultuml/Forestal Committee noted last week that Mr. Harris has not and cannot make out a case for financial hardship. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should likewise reject his request, but should also take note that Mr. Harris is not acting in his own self-interest. He is a ~tmjan horse" for a developer and he is abusing this process by attempting to avail himself of an othem/ise legitimate exception to the rules. A developer has offered to purchase Mr. Harris' land. This offer of purchase, however, is contingent upon Mr. Hards successfully withdrawing his property from the Agdcultural/Forestal Distdct so that this developer may develop the land. Naturally, we residents of Free Union Road do not wish to see this property developed. But more significant than our personal vision for the neighborhood is the implication of Mr. Harris' actions: he is a (perhaps unwitting) member of a conspiracy to subvert legitimate County land use restrictions, the integrity of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the authority of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The developer is using Mr. Harris to accomplish what he personally cannot: there are limited grounds upon which land can be prematurely withdrawn from the agficultural/forestal district, and none are available to the developer in this case. So he is offedng to pay Mr. Harris to come forward with this story of financial hardship. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors permit this ruse to succeed, the message to the developers will be clear- the land use restrictions of this County are meaningless. Don~ be played for fools, ladies and gentlemen. See Mr. Harris' request for what it is and reject it. · Page I Respectfully, Neighbors of Free Union Road. Signature ; Pdnt name Address · Page 2 Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually intrusive, 110 foot tall, lattice type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MHz public safety radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resource [is] essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." * The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not he sited ulong ridgefines or ridge tops. That towers should not he located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. - Peters Mountain is in the Historic District * The National Park Service describes the District as,"some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." * This tower will be ~ible from two State Scenic Dy-whys and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. This site is on a ridgellne and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Northeast corner of Albemarle County." o A consultant for the PEC concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could he employed to satisfy coverage objectives." · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review ofali available ulteruative~ ·The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of cunservation easements * The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the disignatiun of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-way~ · The County allowed the value judgement of the consultant to preclude any such evaluation of options by the County's elected offic~l~ /~.na~ ] // / Printed Name / Street Address City and Zip Code / /__ / / / ./ / I I Petition To .The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually intrusive, 110 foot tall, lattice type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MHz public safety radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resource [is] essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of fife." * The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or ridge tops. That towers should not be located in AvOidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic District * The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." * This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. ·This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "h~hest elevation in the Northeast corner of Albemarle County.' ·A ~:unsultant for the PEC eoneladed: "'Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives." · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of aH available alternatives. · The County's dismissal of alteruatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements · The County's decision to eonsider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the Nationul Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the disignation of Routes 20, 22, and 2;31 as Scenic Virginia By-way~ · The County allowed the value judgement of the consultant to preclude any such evaluation of options by the County's elected officiai~ Email/Phone # / / Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually obtrusive, 1 lO-foot talk lattice4ype radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, We recognize that this tower is part of counEavide 800 MHz public-safety radio system, Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the system's requirements but do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: ·The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important m protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [is] essential m the County's mxal character, economic vitality, and quality of life." ·The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic District. o The National Park Service describes the District as "some oftbe Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County," ·A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of all available alternatives. ·The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost consiflemtions ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. ·The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-Ways. Signature ~ / Printed Name ! Street Address / City and Zip Cede ! e-mnil/Phone g , · · . v ' ;a -~1 I I 6/ ' - ' ' ' - I.:~,,~ C.t.~ / , z~l Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction ora visually obtrusive, 110-foot mi1. lattice-type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of counlywide 800 MI-Ix public-safely radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the systiqn's requirements but do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: ·The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That prolecting "the County's scenic resources [is] essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." ·The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic District. o The National Park Service deseribas the District as "some oftbe Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "higbest elevation in the Northeast comer of AIhamarle County.': ·A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of all available alternatives. ·The County's dismissal ofalteraatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. ·The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-Ways. Signature / Printed Name ' Street Address ~ City and Zip Code / e-mail/Phone ~ ) ' -Tx ...... ' ..... .J, .... / / Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually obtrusive. 110-foot tall. lattice-type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountaras Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MI~. public-safety radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the system's requlramants but clo not negatively impact the Historic Dismct. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: ·The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [is] essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." ·The County's Tower Policy slates that towers should not be sited along tidgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic Distriet. o The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and stmcrares. · This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." ·A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of alt available alternatives. ·The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. ·The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-Ways. Signature Printed Name Street Address / City and Zip Code e-mail/Phone # / Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually obtrusive, 110~foot tall. lattice-type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part ofcotintyW~de 800 MHz public-safety radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the sygte~'s requirements but do not negatively tmpact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: ·The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [isi essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgetines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mouutamtops are eonsidared Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historih District. o The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." · A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are availab e that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" · The County has not completed a thorough and dgorons review of all available alternatives. ·The County's dismissal of alternatives based an cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia B?Ways. Signature Printed Name . Street Address , City and Zip Code e-mail/Phone # \, ,x, x' , ~ /Y ' 1~ ' ' - Petition TO The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction of a visually obtrusive. 11 O-foot tall. la~tice-Wpe radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MHz public-safety radio system. Our intent ~s to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the system's requiremer~s but do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following reasons: · The CounW's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its munntam resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [is] essential to the Coumy's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life.- · The Couray's Tower Policy s~tes that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Dis~cts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic DisV~ct. o The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous con~'ibuting and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ~idgelina and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Nur~heast corner of Albemarle County." A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" * The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of all available alternatives. · The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. · The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores ~he public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-Ways. S~gnarure Printed Name ' Street Address , City and Zip Code ~ e-mail/Phone ~ k.. - ; ---------------m, Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction ora visually obtrusive, 110-foot tall. lattice-type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MHz public-safety rodin system. Our intent is to encourage the County to seek alternatives that meet the system's requirements but do not negatively impact the Historic District. We oppose this tower for the following masons: ·The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [is] essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." ·The County's Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not he located in Avoidance A~eas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic District o The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's mosl pristine and scenic countryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from unmemus contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ridgeline and was recommended to the County as the "highest elevation in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." ·A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that Could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of all available alternatives. ·The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost considerations ignores the landownem in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. ·The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Runtes 20, 22, and 231 as Scehic Virginia By-Ways. Signature ~ Printed Name / Street Address / City and Zip Code ~ e-mail/Phone # , .:..:.. , - :'z.r- ~'!' /, 7 ~ ' ,, - ' , ' ~ ' ' "'~' :" ' " ( ' "' .... I..u_uI'_~ :3. 'ln't / ~'~¥,,',.,~,-.,.~.~ / 'iT,,. !,~\,~/~u,..-~ / r~": "',3f:;:,~.,, ;,.? / ,4 ,~. /~. ~ , ~C_x -~ t.'.'/~//,.~ 7"', ~'~'.&::,./>~ C~',f(.'~,~,~.: ,.~C'~I : ~-',C.C. ~V~~. , ,~. 2.~~' - ., ?, . i i Petition To The Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors We, the undersigned, oppose the construction ora visually obtrusive, 110-foot tall, lattice-type radio tower on Peters Mountain in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We recognize that this tower is part of countywide 800 MHz public-safety radio system. Our intent is to encourage the County m seek alternatives that meet the sygiexit's requirements but do not negatively impact the Histohc District We oppose this tower for the following reasons: · The County's Comprehensive Plan states that it is important to protect the County's historic resources and its mountain resources. That protecting "the County's scenic resources [isi essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." · The County' s Tower Policy states that towers should not be sited along ridgelines or on ridge tops. That towers should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Historic Districts and mountaintops are considered Avoidance Areas. · Peters Mountain is in the Historic District. o The National Park Service describes the District as "some of the Piedmont's most pristine and scenic coumryside." o This tower will be visible from two State Scenic By-ways and from numerous contributing and eligible historic sites and structures. · This site is on a ridgeline and wes recommended to the County as the "highest elevatiun in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." · A consultant for the Piedmont Environmental Council concluded: "Alternative site and design options are available that could be employed to satisfy coverage objectives" · The County has not completed a thorough and rigorous review of all available altamatives. · The County's dismissal of alternatives based on cost considerations ignores the landowners in the Southwest Mountains who have voluntarily and permanently protected this landscape through the donation of conservation easements. · The County's decision to consider this site and dismiss the concerns of the community ignores the public policy interests recognized by the National Park Service for a Historic District and the Commonwealth in the designation of Routes 20, 22, and 231 as Scenic Virginia By-Ways. Signature ~ Printed Name Street Address City and Zip Code e-mail/Phone # DISTRIBUTED TO Jeff werner To: i308 on Cc: Subject: Walter Perkins; blake caravati; Charles Martin; David Bowerman (direct); David J. Toscano; dennis rooker; Kevin Lynch; meredith richards; Maurice Cox; Sally T. via RCS; lindsay dottier, jr.; leonard sandridge bob tucker; Gary OOonnell; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Stephen Waller; tom foley; Wayne Campagna; Wayne Cilimberg; larry davis 800 MHz Radio Interference Issue Dear Sally, Meredith, .Dennis, Charles, David, Walter, Lindsay, Kevin, David, Maurice, Blake and Leonard: On Tuesday night, I presented the County Planninq Commission with information regarding interference problems associated with 800 MHz ra~io systems and pending action from the Federal Communications Commission which could have fiscal consequences on municipalities with such systems. I learned about this from Ted Kreines, the County's recent consultant on its Wireless Tower Policy. From Mr. Kreines' Oct/Nov ~001 PlanWireless newsletter: - ..... if your county has an 800-MHz trunked public safety system, there is hardly a cause for feeling safe and secure. According to an article in the August 5, 20001 issue of the Portland Oregonian, public safety agencies in 21 states have filed complaints with the FCC due to interference received on their 800-MHz public safety systems from one carrier: Nextel. What "interference" means is that the public safety person (police, fire, etc.) can't complete a life-or-death call." (Mr. Kreines mailed me a copy of this Oregonian article. I will mail you a copy today.) APCO, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials has posted this announcement on their website: "Members of the public safety, commercial services industry, and manufacturers formed a joint task force to identify the scope and nature of the growing trend of interference caused by localized placement of commercial service transmitters. The problem has been associated with commercial ESMR operations, but has also been identified with cellular operations as well. It has been shown that several forms of cellular type operations are causing "holes" in the normal coverage patterns of existing [800 MHz] public safety radio systems." They add: "A typical public safety base is located [to] maximize its range but may not be near an area that is critical for mobile contact. Usually such areas receive a signal level well within normally acceptable desi~Fn criteria. If a commercial provider places a station in these areas of low, but usable signal, very often the addition of the commercial transmitter to the overall radio frequency environment is just enough to mask the intended public safety signal. The industry trend for commercial radio [is] to increase capacity and coverage by placing [more] transmitters in [urban] areas. Quite often these are the very same locations that are becoming critical for public safety to provide reliable coverage. The conflict is evident and the trend will not alter in the foreseeable future." As I told the Planning Commission, the timing of this is simply a function of when I learned of it (last Wednesday, 12/5) and completed my own initial review. Confirming that this is a recent event, the information on the FCC website (listed below) is dated November 21, 2001. I feel completely obligated to bring it your attention. What is very clear is that there IS an interference problem being experienced with 800 MHz systems across the US. It is also clear that the industry (led by Nextel and Motorola) are urging the FCC to take action to rectify the problem. They have evaluated several options and whichever option is selected, it will cost approximately $1'-billion to repair. The communications industry has much to lose if the burden is placed on them and are making their case now, up front. In any event, it is going'to cost someone money WHEN the FCC does take action. (See the FCC websites listed below.) This issue should be discussed by the City County and UVa as soon as possible. What is clear is that the FCC has NOT taken any action yet and may not for some time--they are still gathering and reviewing data. What is also clear is that something MUST be done. Subsequently, there is no predicting WHAT they will decide. However, no matter what action they take, even if it is suggested that our proposed system may not exper£~nce:'.? interference, the FCC ruling WILL apply on a national level. To comply with the new FCC regs, the required reworking, rebuilding,, replacing.and~or. . enhancing of thesi~"~syst.ems.'iwill be comprehensive. Consider also, Nextel is currently build'lng its infrastructure l'n our area. I reviewed several relevant websites--listed below. I offer this to you as, simply, information and, quite frankly, NOT relative to our stated concerns about a tower on Peters Mountain--(For all I know, the FCC's action may require even more towers.). Any questions about this information below would be better directed to the FCC or your consultant. If nothing, other than as a City resident/taxpayer, a I/Va alum, and an individual interested in the future of Albemarle County, I urge you to review this information and consider the consequences if this is not evaluated now and certainly before we spend millions on a system that could in the near future could be either obsolete or require additional capital expenditure to make function properly. I have pored over everything I could find on this. I am convinced that this concern--particularly in the absence of an FCC ruling--is very,-very real. Respectfully, Jeffrey B. Werner, AICP Charlottesville-Albemarle land Use Field Officer The Piedmont Environmental Council 977-0830 Websites with information covering 800MHz System interference Issues APCO - Association of Public Safety Communications Officials http://www.apco911.org/afc/800Mhzinterfereupdate.htm http://www.apcointl.or~/afc/800interfere.htm http://www.apco911.or~/afc/800bp~.htm http:.//www.apco911.org/afc/documents/BPG.pdf Federal Commttnications Commission http://wireless.fcc.~ov/releases/011121-1etter.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/011121-whitepaper_final.txt http://wireless2fcc.~ov/releases/011121-support_letter.pdf News around the nation:- http://www.sa-lawyers.net/smr.htm http://www.cv.nrao.edu/vla/up~rade/nodell4.html http://www.co.prince-william.va.us/planning/Descript/pubrev.htm http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=NEil201004-2tc http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=CA184379 http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=NEdl128000.5cn http://industryc~ick.c~m/ma9newsartic~e.asp?newsartic~eid=2373~3&magazineid=3&SiteID=29 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2OO1/3/12/81217.shtml http://www.dallasnews.com/technology/210273_police_09nat.A-html http://www.rfsOlutions.com/ont-intf.htm http://www.rfsolutions.com/fcc.htm Fauquier County, Va. http://www.zwire.c~m/site/news.cfm?newsid=2769~79&BRD=~904&PAG=46~&dept-id=~27458&rfi=6 http://www.zwire.c~m/site/news.cfm?newsid=2769224&BRD=~9~4&PAG=46~&dept-id=~5~927&rfi=6 http://www.fauquiernews.com/index.htm ~ P~ublic' Safety~800 MHz System Interference Update Page 1 of 3 Public Safety Interference Task Force In April this year, APCO attended'a meeting hosted by the'FCC in Washington, D.C. regarding the public safety 800 MHz system interference issue. Along with APCO, Nextel and Motorola attended. Nextel had been identified specifically as a party involved in many of the interference issues. Motorola attended as manufacturer of the equipment Nextel uses. This meeting was intended to bring the representatives of the affected parties together in an attempt to identify the scope of the problem. Each party attending provided an overview of the problem from its perspective. The FCC requested the attendees create a task force to further address this issue. The FCC specifically asked the task force to operate independently of the FCC but did assign an FCC liaison to monitor the progress. The mission of the task force was to fully identify the scope of the problem, the actual parties and mechanisms behind the interference, and ultimately provide a workable solution to dealing with the interference. Primary contact individuals for the task force are: Bob McNamara Nextel (703)-433-4222 Jeanine Poltronieri Motorola (202)-371-6896 (task force designated coordinator) Glen Nash APCO (916)-657-9495 Jeanne Kowalski FCC liaison (202)-418-1897 More than one specific technical mechanism was identified as the cause behind the interference from preliminary data provided during the meeting. However, virtually all modes of interference could be tracked to the different design modes of commercial systems and public safety systems. Briefly, public safety systems are designed to maximize coverage from a centrally located base station using the maximum technical capabilities of equipment. This is defined as "noise limited" design. Mobiles operate close to their practical design threshold, in this case, close to their maximum receive sensitivity in the extremes of their coverage area. On the other hand, commercial systems are designed to hand-off mobiles well before they approach a threshold signal level. And system designers purposefully place base station transmitters in relative close proximity of strong signal overlap to ensure continuous coverage for a moving mobile. This is called "interference limited" inasmuch as the mobile travels until it encounters a stronger signal as the mobile enters a stronger signal of an adjoining site. This also allows for the installation of many small transmitter sites or cells. Economically, the commercial provider can increase the frequency reuse providing greatly increased capacity for areas of high access demand by the public. ~ _t~p~_i~_c_a_l_.p_u.b_lj_c_._-s~fety bgse i_s_10cated. strategiqally to maxiroiz_e its range but may not be near an area that is critical for mobile contact. Usually such areas receive a http://www.apco911.org/afc/800Mhzinterfereupdate.htm 12/11/01 ~ub'lic' safer3; 800 MHz System Interference Update Page 2 of 3 signal level well within normally acceptable design criteria. If a commercial provider places a addition o f the commercial transmitte_r~o, the..o~ra!! mdi~ ~qu~__n_c~y .................. is just_ enough tO-mask the intended public safety signal.- The industry trend for commercial radio providers is to increase capacity and coverage by placing more and more transmitters in areas that coincide with high concentrations of general population. Quite often these are the very same locatiOns that are becoming critical for public safety to provide reliable coverage. The conflict is evident and the trend will not alter in the foreseeable future. The problem is not limited to Nextel operations. Many other commercial mobile radio operations can also interfere in this same general manner. This includes other cell phone operations as well as dispatch-~ype operations. It happens that Nextel's choice of t, echnology is a digital modulation technique that can be more harmful than older analog technologies, but even older technologies are not immune from causing these problems. More recently, APCO, represented by Glen Nash, first vice president elect; and Ron Haraseth, director of AFC, visited with CTIA (Commercial Telecommunications Industry Association) representatives in Washington, D.'C., to further discuss the direction of efforts. Concurrently, Motorola and APCO have developed information-gathering tools in the form surveys to better identify the agencies receiving interference and determine the exact interference mechanism for each. APCO has created an online reporting form located on the APCO Web site. Response has been good, but we are sure many more affected agencies have not reported. Many agencies may be experiencing intermittent interference from commercial sources and may be unaware of the cause. APCO will be compiling this information internally to use in an information campaign that will assist agencies experiencing problems in determining how to identify this type of interference. Motorola has also created an Excel spreadsheet that can be used to quantify the interference in greater detail, which will help pinpoint the exact cause and potential solutions. APCO has made this spreadsheet available on its Web site as well. Identifying the scope and severity of the problem is only the first step in our efforts. This does not prevent nor assuage the problem. Means of reporting the problem must follow once the symptoms and mechanism are identified. Progressing further requires a system to collect, monitor and track each specific instance of interference. At some point in this process, the parties involved in the interference will be brought together, and both will be required to report progress on solutions. Frankly, there is little chance of a permanent long-term solution to this type of interference. Even when a "fix" is applied, it may only mean the problem moved to some other site (moving a specific commercial frequency to another site). Also, the commercial mobile radio industry is growing and continually adding new locations to their networks. This includes chaneine frecluencv mixes at other http://www.apco911 .org/afc/800Mhzinterfer~p~da~?._h. tm 12/11/01 800 MHz System Interference Update Page 3 sites creating a dynamic problem. The information a~nd~contacts n~ade through a monitoring process may assist the commercial providers in designing systems that will not interfere as often. It will most certainly assist public safety agencies ............... t0-qui6klY id~ii-tify the problem and obtain faster resolutions. If we 6annot .......... entirely eliminate the problem, at least we should be able to help provide a quicker resolution when interference is encountered. http ://WWw.apco911 .org/afc/800Mhzinterfereup _date.h ~.t~_ 12/11/01 Interference · at risk as publi~c safetj By £HILy TSAO end RYAN FRANK An invisible threat endangers the lives o/police offcars:Across the court- w/, nl~cars grab for a radio only to fald _: ,their voices Mocked b~/a nearby, celiu. tar phone tower arnir~ing more ~ower- fnl transmissions, er interference with their No offcers have been hun or killed as a result of the impediment. But agen- cies across the country saythe nte~fer. ence ullen threatens public safety -- and the lives of police officers and fire- fl~hters. Among the incidents: · In June, two Denver police ol~ioers on a nar.entice surveillance witnessed a shooting and tried to call for emergency bac..ku[~i Their radios wouldn't work undi t~ey ran a block Pmdles failed gain in the same |ocaflon two weeks ater during a foot chase. · In April, two Portland offcesa lost rd- din cormecdon es they rushed toga re- ported burglar/near ~e airpor~ · in November 2000, 12 olflcera in Scottsdaie, Arl~, stood within 100 feet of one another but couldn't use their radios es they searched for a man who had reportedly waved a gun during a banoom brawl. · In June 2000, a Tigard police offcet faced an armed man and radioed for backup. Only the word "gm~" went through. gets killed," said Detective Aaron Minor of the SOn.dais, AfL% Police Depam merit, whtch estimates that signals 6:om a nearby ceil phone tower inter- fered with pqltce radios at least 300 ~[raes during a seven-month petied last "Obviously, this could involve the loss of life," said Gloria TdstanL a com- Out · .- ~,.~..,;.,~:: missioner with the Federal Cormnunl. cations Commission. In interviews, public safety managers Over s s[x- ~,d FCC officials say that one cell pnune company alone -- Nextel Com. munlcatian~ of Reston, Va. -- is the source ofinteffereeee with public safe- public safety ty communications in 21 states, ohgclals In 50 states and Udiike other cell phone compardes, founaZ8 states Nexte] Uses radio frequencies inter- withatleaste~ twined with or adjacent to those used case et by public safety radios. confirmed or Nextel agrees the interference is seri- suspected cell o.u~. bu, t says It occurs in only a handful phone tower otme hundreds of aifies where it oper- ates. "This isn't'a widespread nedonai problem,' said Nextel Vice President Lawrence I(revor, who ackuowiedges csuse~ the that the towers the company uses cause majority of interference in 12 states. those cases. Please see TOWERS~ Page Al6 Je~Ol Ile3 auoqd tiaa Jolly siaao! auoqd iio~ aJqaB · 250channih. Therosuir ~n~like250 n';·[]l~l:ml,I W Iggal, I:~ara~l I- a i~.~,~ m: ~ra= .m- . £e:~WebevenotencormteredtMiFlife' lanesonahighv.~y, with poilce officers ' 1~[[~ [[][[] ~ I]~ I~ I~W I~'~ I'-~.'~ ~ ."~?'atedir~g;almad°ea)bus" .~Y~ah.Our ~ t drivlngonluneslqberwcenta.Msand., .[[l[~-~.[,~[ [ I[~ I/~[ I'/~ 'l~[l~i II c/A~n~.m-,--'~/.·}~.,u'lgillvingqlxj~ll~i~ed ...tpwwacks. A. separere.allecation_a 4. ~{[~b~F,'[] I'll [/~[ I/~][~ III Ill / c~lme,-%sMd Stev~.O~oper, dh~on 'mockofg00MHzchannelsthatareunt ~l[~ bi! [] ~ I1~1 I~i~l'll I~mm~l~l I~!~,~1 I.~l~ ~ ~effo~the~ver~lice[~er~ent Mter~ed-- a~"any placed' police ' - ........ :; . ="~.~. · l'-~mm I----=_~*__- 'm---- - berwean what woMd become r~6 ceHu~ . - -: ~'.- · ' ' ~CH~k'0~/a~esCGONC~ .;+in SCORsd~e' A~, during a seven- -~ ,.. '. ..... ~,,.~-~*,~- '.mon~ Period bet year police o~cers brcompa~es, . ' .' .', .' '.:~:: cou~ not use ~e~ radbs Wen The areas ~ wi~ch ceil~er ~era F~ . ;L __fi" ;.~ ' .';-'~:cha~ed~tobarstobte~upbmv~ . un lanusry .la zuoo -- i~:monms :~:'anan~r~antd~hd~C" ' .~ after guran v*mte his letter ~ fire FCC : , :. · ':' ': . '·' · In Seattle, since 1999, radios have ingtun' Square mall stopped worldng pmpedy,'~omeV~rnss de~yMg firegght. abut public safety ttansmissioea gould ~/IS' mspoeae to emergenc~ calls in the become hot ~pots for complex midair ' i'~ctthatcovers IOd~es. Cmcislmdio conflicts. information was some~mas garbled. N~tel's lllrth - Firefightet~ at the gadun complained to ~ ~g~ a fo~-~r FCC lawyer named their 9-1-1 managers. M ig 'Brian launched Nex~el'spro. Spurred by tile complaints, Joe Kman, ctnsor company, e mobile radio farm, Wo~tin~ton CounWs lead radio tochni- with a dream oil-turning It into a na~on- dan, hunched an invesdga~n. wide wireless pllooe pm'Ader. Kuran knows that radios are not per- fact Police radios, like AM/FM radios, :~, Star~g out as a two-v/ay radio com- pany, O'Brien banght thousands ergO0 MHz radio f~equancles from small taxi and tow trdek companies, among others. ~ The-neighbors, coexisted peaceably for years Then, in 1991, the;FCC made what wodid turn un{ to be a ~mcial de- s~raeflmes expedance poor k~srdis. sion inside bafMinlis or tunnels. Some- . limes police radios don't work because l~u~pment f~lure, weethar or nearby When Kuran and his staff checked the fire d~Mc~s radio equipment, eve~y- thing seemed to function properly. But when technicians tested the rodin nals, they found samell~g mysterious. Some areas had normal signals, and other ~pots just a few feet away had no signal at all ' A crusade begins fi~nUna.~uming 54-year-old.with wire- ed glauea, Kusan doesn't.haw.a fancy college engineering degree. He fin- AJ~. Force communications. He spent pan bf his ighy~ar career as a Motfimla radio tochrdclan. In November 1998,. armed wlth his against cell phone tower interference. He wrote what k'ould be the first In a series of letters to FCC officials, notifying them of the problem that he SMd could poten- tially l~ad to the loss of lifo and progeny. Kuran also wrote an anicla that peared In the March 1999 issue of the · trade janmal Mobile Radio Technology, which is road by industry executives and communication engineers. HIs aracie prompted public safety officers around tho counay to scrmidi~e their gym sys- ctsion. The federal agency ~lowed O'Bfien's company to use the frequen. cias for a new purpose: to build a digital network for wfreless phones. The dec s on ~ave O'Bdan's cempany terns and wender if ceil rowers wero cre- an advantage b~cau$~ the radio liceusea he bought were far cheaper than the Addinl~ to the mystery was the dh- atingproblems, 'loc Kuran was the fast to really nell it onesthathadbeenallocatodtotheceli covety mat radio transmissions wei'e down,%aldKevinKeurns, telecommuni: phone compames that were his com. ciearerinsidethe atatlonwith theli~rage ~uns managerfer IOngcoumy, which pelitora, daor closed and when the stodnn'a an- udes Seatde. ~He was the one who These 90OMHz mdlo frequencies . ~nnawesmusedimide. potsom~technicelmeatbehindit." however, were the verg ones' thet Yaunnandthestefflookedhardar~ But much ll~e in Washington Cunnty, abutted police officers.and firefighter~ Abhut a nuecter-mile away the~ othcrradiotochniclanshadtmublecon. In the radio spoctmnkThe FCC, not re. fun~d the pro~lem planted on [~p of ~ fm~lng the~0urces of interference. alizingltsdecisionwouldlateraffectpo- red-bflckbulld{ng:aNextelantanns. Cell phone frequencies are moved lice officers, hailed the company for u~ When N~.xt el shut off its site the inter from tower to tower based on demand. ingthcradioepectmmmoreefficlantly. . feroncevunhhed. ' - Companies may use a handful of fre- 7he company O'Brian foanded ater N . . quanclas at one tower overnight but became Neatel and h~s liourisbed into . N..extel~?s lrausm~, .t~lmg at frequencies mo~e them to another tower foe rash- the nation's fifth-largest whaless pm, similar to mos~ man by the fire station, hour demand. [ 'Aden with 7.7 million U.S. subscrthe~. Besaus~ the cell pho[ie tower was so Some police radios cunarandy change The discovert ' ~O,~se~t~ ~ s~°~ Its ~1~.~8~ ove.rl~- channels, automatically eseking an open in the s~ttng of 1998, Rrefighters at ; .... e ~p~.~. ~raus...W,o, ns co.~,g frequency each time officers push the ncoma county cemrnumcaflons to,,~r talk bntion. Standirl~ nenr a ~11 m,~o. one o f W~iiin~on County's busiest fire inure than four miles away atop Council drain_ a carnmuter ~uih ~n~ ~- '7"~' stetions nollced a mysterious phennm- Crest. s , oracer s m- enon. din may be blocka~ and an hour later, The discovery made Washington justfine, The alargl system at Tualatin Valley County one of the counwfs first agen- As other agencies homed in un the Fire & Rescue's et~liun near the Wasli- cies to prove celi tower intefferonee, problem, Kuran waited to hear from the wrote back '. ...... ;, been swamped with static'or don't work ublic safe and fi '' ... · ............. nay . p ty p vatovame~a'ar~. · --~ . . , , ' sion, ~mte a fous-paragraph letter flint ' : .? in ranemx, Ati.~, the math of the Po- said neither Negal nor Waslgngton '" /aceDepamnent's~dioelgnalstoitsin. Coufity violatlkl feder;al gafdfllnes.. She ..car computers w'~ reduced, by moro said the paniss shodid resolve the Issue ' ' man IS percent, preventing officers ontheir~m. ' ' '.... '.-:fi*om cheddng motoriat~' rocords for ......... .~'~ .;~untsmd~-rants .. ','~ ' ........ ' '~ll'l~( llnlp --I=- . ;. ' "In ~10ft~e ~ states, oflkl~ila'say they Six months lamr, interference ~ still have identified Neatel as the source of eropping up in.Washingtun County -- ' the interference. In at least five othar ~ tim~ near the Tigerd police station states, offidials think Next~l i~ the cause und aeros~ fire stroct frora n fire gating, but haven't bean able to pro~ it. In two This incident alerted county oflkiah thatgates,' other cellular companies are thn nmhlorn ~-~a ~m~ng thought to be the problem. They enable ~icers to sall~'fer'-fiein-~o' ~ uted to thc problem. . themselves and for oth~ tn m~,-A m Nextel's I~evor neknowiedged his radio hantanlee~- is lm,'~cmnt because ' companyiscausingintefferancein 1~ of office~drive~h~tcers~ne¢ ; ' tho ~il ~rates: Afl~na, Callfomla~ Culo- rado, Florida, Louisluna..Mat¥1ami, New "The radio -- it h your lifeline,' ~d lersey. New York, North ~ar&ina, Ohio~ Tigurd Officer left LaM. 'It Is the only Ot~an and W~hington, The company mty ~t/can I~t help and to let paopl~ know ~fiat Is going on amun<i you.. IS wur!dng to reduce Instances of inter- Whon you are an'yunr own it l~ &~,y~" ferance caused by iss cell. towers as they become knovm, he said. Just.bafere 6 am. June 9, 2000, l. aln spotted a 1984 gray Buick sed~l that be smd ran a stop s[~l. Although it looked as ff he wotild he making a murine tra~c In the other states, lCsevor said, Negal IS not the cause of intefferance or that he had not been notified of-any prob- lems, stop, Lain said he also knewit cedid mm Some of the problems, pubLic safety deadly, officials say, were handled by local Nex- Nisca~srodandbluebgh~fleshedin tel aaff Officials in Sm Diego and the early morning light Houston, among others, SMd they are The driver maf Lain stopped at a star- expedancing only miner intede~unce age facility on SouthweSt I~umham 'fromNextoltowers. . Street, nest thepolicegation. Aeros~the But public safety officials say these siTeet Anthuny Pesasdore, also of tbe Ti- . aren't all the cages ' §ard police, sat'in bis patrol car'wxiting 'Undoubtedly, there ere people e~pe- reports. ANextcl~elltowergaednearby. ]innclng the problem that~we dun't Lain radieed his locadon to the*dis- know about yet," said Glen Nosh, patch center but dispatchers couldn't - president-elect d die Association .of bear hL-n. He later lesmed that the only Please see ?ow£ns, Pa~e · states .i°g similar"' -, . reports a lobb~g ~oup b~ ~ Dayna ~'*: Who's ~o bfame~ Duyck and his ~e~el ~ ~e Fgg ~y ~e~ ~e floc Valley ~y, ~e F~ appm~ ~e ~mp~s com~ters pl~ to b~d a ~ ne~rk on be- quenci~ n~ m ponce ~d ~ depm- 'informflon "~ ~ due rmp~g Newel ~'t Whenthey roll :,: foyer ~ef of ~e FCC ~te Ra~o across the ~ ~ee~ ?~d for ~e~- Sometimes · < ~ he ~ "... ~ g not ~ wo~ ~ ~e comply to e~te ~ of ~e ~te~erence ~d '~t ro c~c~e N~el ~ Ee ~eat ~ We ~e ~ ~e s~e boaL We · ' ~dof~tsmckby~eFCC,,, ~:~ 8u~ ~e N~el, FCC o~ci~ say · ~ ~'t have pr~a~ ~e '~' / %, engage ~ ~ge~o~g,. ~e F~'s r,r, V uep~enm'demm ~eFCC'sH~dpo~ther~gerat agen~ S~n yems ~o spent I62 ~. T~d~ d~i~ ~e ~mm .... quench, d ~r ~ ~9~c~dep~en~' outdat~ ~og rs- ~~ gs/Fo~er ~d of ~e 280 Nt~ ~e- ~d de~e~ ...... ~Y ~, ~e agen~ is pl~g a $9 ~on ~d d~p ~m. 8ut ~e N~el ~;~ ~L~ ~_~.~ent ~ CELL TOWER CONFLICT Repe~t mistake? Foesanar said of the 250 intertwined f~e- quandee v~nere Neslel and public s~ety depaztmants opora~ "There was noth- Ing can~.'o~ersi~l ~bout it. It was a no- hralner as rsr as the govemmem was concerned. Unfortunately, ~ years later with the advance of teclmology~ it has turned out to be a poor decision." Dale N. Haffield, chief of the FCC's Of- rice of Engineedn§ and Technology from 19g8 to 2~00. said the comml~on might .D~ have predicted the interference flits en- ginearlng smffwam't so overworked. Even if ~he commission couldn't have predicted the problem, some public safety officials want it fixed by the FCC, which wields broad enforcement pow- mandate any changes because I/extel and public safety officials already are working together to resolve the Issue. FooSaner reid the FCC: doesn't have Public safew officials admit they could CELL TOWER CONFLICT system update that doesn't include new handimld radios, Washlntlt~n County rldlo towers vs. Nestel towers The WeshincJtofl County 9+1 center has tour radio towers· The towers are on top of peaks and beam slqnals into the valleys sometimes coflflicllflg with s[~nsls from Nextet's .tower,s Repeat mistake? Some public safety and cellular ifidus- uy expem fear that the FCC L~ setting the stage for another midair das.h .x_ fl~ time ~n the 700 MHz band. The commission plans m allacate a section of the band for police effteers and wireless companies such as NasteL The FCC says it has taken meamres m event cellular ftequendes liom bleed.- g into public safety channek But public safety offidah and those la the cellular industry,. Indudinli Nastel and equipment manufact~e~ Motomis. ~ay the measures are not enough. Motorola officials sag the FCC miss adll allow cellular eorapardas to tire pow- public safety frequencies, creating a vir- tual repeat of the problems on t~e ~OO MHzband. -- 'The effect on public safety ~tems' coverage ama would be cetadlnuni8... ' Steve Sharkey, the cnmpany's director of telecommunications regulation, wrote to the FCC in December. The 700 MHz au~on was most m- centiy ~cheduled for September hut was delayed for the ~ dsne last month while the FCC comiders the concerns, '7~.?he auction has not been mschedule~L News re~earcher~ £.vnne l~dombo and . · Margie Gultr~ o. fthe Oregonian contr~. ' 'utedtotht~smty. goacanr~achEmily Tsao at $0~.~1.$~8 or liy e-mail at or by e-ma~l ar ryanfrank~neu~orego. i ,Agendes find fixing interference roblems no 'Public safety agancles around the -o~: countgt have relied un or worked toward -ce three main solutiom on interference ~I.~ problems with Nextd towers: ~'~ * Tinkering with towers: The wireless :o, company'reducas signal strength, recil- reels antennas or uses different fre- ' quan_clns. .~: In Orange County, Calif., Nextel _-~ tuned 1fi0 cell sites, and communlca- · dan officials say the interference was - ~.- Improved by ~0 percent, But officials fo · ' Portland and Denver said the retorted ;:::. towers offered a slight bat still unae- ceptable improvement than $1 mlilion. · Swap frequencies: Separate the 250 But the swap would leduce [nteffer- intertwined f~equancias into two'sepa- once only in cities where'the f~equem rote bloc~: one for public safety and flesareintetr'wthed, onefurNextel. .·Buy new equipment: Police depart- The switch would need FCC approv- monte could spend as little as a few al. Technicians also would have to re- . thousand dollm:s for new handheld rs- program rowers and thousands of rs- dins or as much as $100 million for an dins. entirely new radio system that uses an- in Denver, Nextel engineers and po- otherpart nfspectrum. 'lice officials are lg4ng to compromise The Miami Ponce Department spent on who will pay the cost to ri'adc fxe- $5.2 million to buy 1,500 Motorola m- quancies, which Lawrence Krevor. Ne:~- dias that eliminated 90 percem of the tel vice president, said could mn more intedetence, sa~d Louis Sciem~, nuper~ inmndant of communicaflor~ The Anne Amndel County police De- pamnent in Ma.Tland spent about $130,000 on 40 new radios thai officers carry in intefferance-lnfested a~eas, said Capt, Gordon Deans. No department has yet shnlveff an entire radio system in favor of one that qhis isn't going to be a silver-builet, magic snap-your-fingem, evetThody sing 'Kumbeya' and go-lmme solution. This is hard work," said ge~t Kearns, telecommuulcatlnas manager for King County. easy task Once Nextel and police and fire ct~eis agree on solutions, the next question is: Who pays for ltl ". Kathhen Ham, deputy chief of the FCC's Wlrelass Telecommunications Bureau, reid only Congress can fund fixes. Officials with Nextel and police and fire departments say they shouldn't pay because they didn't create the problem. l~evor sold Nastel has already spent mom than $I million researching inter- feranee. Santha Bast, a Nextel consul- tant, asked, "What Is the ap~sopdate cnst.charln~ We're not a bank.' 6478 Gordonsville Rd. Keswick, VA 22947 Nov. 25, 2001 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Ave. Richmond, VA 23221 Atto: Marc Holma, Architectural Historian Re: Construction of telecommunications tower in Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District Dear Sir, I am writing to express my opposition to construction ofa 110-foot (plus 15-foot antenna) telecommunications tower atop Peters Mountain in the heart of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and in the backyard of Castle Hill, a major historic property in Central Virginia. This area retains its rural character because of low population density and a high percentage of land in agricultural use. Civil War battles were fought in areas of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and relics from those battles are still being uncovered. The Peter's Mountain site for a telecommunications tower is not included in the original ~stem design by the Motorola Corporation nor in the FCC license application of the Emergency Communications Center (the ECC is a consortium made up of the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and Albemarle County). Last year, the ECC hired a consultant who told them that building a tower at Peter's Mountain instead of the site in the application would save some money and provide slightly better coverage. Motorola has yet to concur with the consultant's findings. The ECC strategy now is to get FCC approval for a license with the sites recommended by Motorola, and then try to switch to Peter's Mountain after the license is granted. However, this invasion of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is only possible if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors grants a special use permit. Concerns of the City of Charlottesville focus, not surprisingly, on the interests of the city. Concerns of the University, located primarily in the city, also focus on the interests of the city. Thus, two of three members of the ECC consortium have no problem with putting the tower in a rural area regardless of damage to the rural landscape or to the historic value of the region. A report by the ECC's consultant notes that "Peter's Mountain offers the highest elevations in the Northeast comer of Albemarle County." Thus, a tower on Peter's Mountain would be visible for miles along two Virginia scenic byways, Route -20 on the west side of the mountains and Route 231 on the east. It would dominate a ridge line that is virtually untouched for 20 miles or more. It would be visible from virtually every property on both sides of the Southwest Mountains. The ECC consultant's report notes that "combinations of other sites provide coverage similar to Peter's, but the region would be paying up to twice as much to provide the same level of performance." However, the report shows that the difference in level of coverage between Peter's Mountain and the original application sites is not statistically significant, i.e., the coverage is very nearly identical. And at a recent public work session held by the Albemarle County Planning and Development Commission, the RCC cost estimate was questioned by a consultant hired by the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC); the PEC consultant suggested that the additional cost was overstated and the RCC representative appeared to agree that the cost estimate was a worst-case scenario. Nobody wants to spend money if it's not necessary. However, the additional cost that may be incurred by protecting the integrity of Peter's Mountain and the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is strictly for nuts and bolts. The dollar cost of defacing the region that includes Peter's Mountain is admittedly hard to calculate, but it is significant. Not only would a tower on Peter's Mountain damage the skyline and landscape for miles around, it also demeans the integrity of Virginia's Rural Historic Districts and the protection that designation implies. It also weakens the county's program to acquire conservation easements because landowners are sure to become skeptical of an administration that funds support for preservation of rural acreage at the same time that it funds construction of an industrial structure in the very heart of that acreage. I hope that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources will determine that invasion of Central Virginia's Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is unacceptable. Albemarle County has ample alternatives for a telecommunications system that provides emergency communications to serve its citizens and at the same time protects valuable state and county resources. The County must take action to preserve instead of despoil the natural amenities that make the area so desirable to residents and visitors alike. Sincerely, Judith E. Sommer William R. Sommer cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning and Development Commission 4966 Barn Field Drive Keswick, Virginia 22947 November 27, 2001 Mr. Marc Holma Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Ave. Richmond, VA 23221 Dear Mr. Holma: I am a resident ofKeswick, a professional wildlife ecologist, and a citizen concerned with the proposed radio tower in the Southwest Mountains Historic District. I feel this proposal should be rejected on several grounds: 1. It appears that proper procedures for determining alternatives were not followed early in the process. The County appears to have purchased land on Peters Mountain BEFORE all other options were even considered. 2. According to the National Historic Preservation Act, impacts of potential developments, such as a tower, must consider not only the site but also the larger context, i.e. the District. An additional 110 R tall tower would certainly seem to "change the character of the property's use, or physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance." 3. The Department of Historic Resources should be encouraged to consider the potential impacts on not only skes cutT, ently included as National or State registers but also those eligible for nomination to the registers, If the tower is allowed to be constructed, many of us are concerned about this setting a precedent for further development and alterations within what is one of the largest Rural Historic Districts in Virginia. We doubt that the originators of the historic district concept envisioned a network ofhigh-tech, high-visibility communication towers to adorn the mountains of this region. On the environmental ledger, adding tall towers is inimical to migratory birds, especially along ridges of mountains with a north-south orientation. More and more evidence is accruing to document the losses of many thousands of birds each spring and fall at tower sites. One tower in the West accounted for more than 10,000 bird deaths in a week during migration! We hope the County of Albemarle will still consider exploring alternatives to the siting of this tower within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. We appreciate any support you can provide in appealing to Albemarle's Board of Supervisors. · Micliael Erwin, Ph.D. Cc: E. Carey, Clerk of the Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors James S. Gilmore, Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources November 28, 2001 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Director Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 TDD: (804) 367-2386 www.dhr.state.va.us Ms. Sally Thomas, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 889 Leigh Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Multi-Jurisdictional Radio Communications System Albemarle County DHR File # 2001-1513 Dear Ms. Thomas: It has recently come to our attention that there may be confusion regarding the Department of Historic Resources' position concerning the proposed Albemarle County Multi-Jurisdictional Radio Communications System tower. 'Our office, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; and its implementing regulation 36 CFR 800, is afforded the oppommity to comment on federal undertakings that may affect historic resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Since the aforementioned tower requires a license from the Federal Commumcations Commission (FCC), it is a federal undertaking as defmed in 36 CFR 800.16(y). Although Albemarle County officials have contacted DHR about this project, these contacts have been in the nature of soliciting assistance to ensure that the County fulftlls its responsibilities under Section 106. To date, the County has not officially requested our review of the project nor have we received specific information about the design of the tower, its location, or the potential for the undertaking to affect nearby historic properties. Therefore, we have not made any determinatiom regarding the project's impact on resources listed in or eligible for the National Register. We look forward to reviewing the material for the Albemarle County Multi-Jurisdictional Radio Communications System tower once the County submits it for our comideration. S' ely,/~ / Division of Resource Services and Review cc: Ella Washington-Carey - Mark Trank jeff Wemei: 10 Co~ou~ Ave; '. ~. l~BBoffin~br~k~t ; '".612Co~St.,3~'~.- : :.~- 1030 P~ Age., SE :~: i07'N.K&~tSt.,~203 Pe~mb~g;~A~03 Pe~b~,~A2~03 ~. - ~ ~ Po~mout~A237~ ~ ' - :~ok% VAil3 > .: ~Wifiche~,:VA~l T~: (~) ~1~ : Tel: (~ ~i620 ~ ' .... Tel: (757) 39~707 " Tel: (~).~-7~5 Tel: (5~) 72~7 F~ (~) 862~196 .... ~ ~ ~F~ (~) ~-1~ F~ (75~ 3~712 F~ (~0) 8572~8 F~ [~0) 72~7~5 G.N. & M.H. HEERTJE/NETTEK 6737 Gordonsviile Rd. Gordonsville, VA 22942 United States of America Ella Washington Carey Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Communication Tower Proposed for Peter's Mountain October 28, 2001 Dear Mrs. Carey: We support the need for a tower. However, we strongly oppose the current proposed location. Therefore we would like to suggest some alternative locations that would not impact the views of the SW mountains at route 22, 20 and 231. The Southwest Mountains in Albemarle County is one of the most scenic areas in the country. Route 231 is often highlighted in travel books and is considered amongst the top three scenic highways in America. This is so because many people who own large parcels of land have placed their properties under conservation easement. They have given this to the county, which serves as a source of revenue for the county. Tourism contributes currency collected by businesses and governments in Albemarle County. The ACE program is currently funded by the Board of Supervisors to buy easements. Two of the easements currently under consideration are located in the Southwest Mountains. This is a contradictory move by the county, to purchase easements to preserve the beauty of the county, and then to place a large lattice tower on top of one of the highest mountains of the SW range, thereby destroying the beauty it professes to value. This tower is contrary to many of the county's own policies. These include: 1. Comprehensive Plan for the area 2. Tower Policy 3. ACE Program 1/ Phone: (540) 832-0609 E-Mail: MNettek~AOL.com GHeertje~AOL.com Fax: (540) 832-3054 11-08-0t A09:12 IN 21 A communication tower consultant has been hired by PEC. They have made alternative suggestions that have not been considered by the county and would be within the guidelines of the above-mentioned policies. Please take the time to consider alternatives to this site. if our requests for sincere and sedous consideration to alternative sites are not given, it wiltbe necessary to litigate your decision. Attached is a copy of your tower policy for your review. We urge you to consider our recommended alternatives. Please note the attached petitions signed by concerned Albemarle County Land Owners Sincerely Cc: Enclosure - signed petitions November 26, 2001 UVA VIRGINIA -29-0 Mr. Dennis Rooker Chairman Albemarle County Planning Commission 1800 Roslyn Ridge Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Rooker: This letter has been written on behalf of the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) Management Board, which is responsible for the control and coordination of the ECC and all public safety radio communications for the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. As you know, the Regional 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Project is one of many projects that has been undertaken by the management board, and one that is considered critical to insuring effective and reliable public safety emergency communications for our citizens and public safety responders. Staffhas provided information to us pertaining to the Planning Commission work session held Thursday November 15, as well as the Commission's request for additional information and evaluation of specific alternatives to the proposed design. As you know, the need for and proposed implementation of a Regional Public Radio System has been extensively investigated and thoroughly evaluated for the past six years. Our objective is to implement a system based on industry-wide public safety radio communications standards, yet incorporate a minimum number of tower sites at minimum heights. The system must meet the coverage and redundancy requirements in order for our 125,000 citizens and police, fire and EMS agencies to receive the maximum benefits of an effective and fully fimctional emergency communications system. We sincerely believe we have accomplished this objective with the proposed system. However, the cost to meet such objectives has been expensive and has reached a point where additional expenditures for continued analysis are not feasible or realistic due to budgetary cost implications and time constraints. We understand the importance of providing the Planning Commission with thorough information to make an informed decision. To that end, a vast amount of information has been made available to date to assist in evaluating the proposed tower site at Peters Mountain, including a detailed Charlottesville - UVA - Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 (804) 970-1098 analysis of potential sites and their impacts on the cost and functionality of the proposed system. We believe that sound technical evidence to support the selection and need for this location as part of the 800 MHz Radio System design has been provided. Further review of additional alternatives, such as the one suggested by the Planning Commission, will require significant additional time, cost and analysis and cannot easily be provided. In addition, a change in the design as suggested will require additional analysis by the vendor which may or may not guarantee coverage requirements. Finally, even without the additional analysis requested by the Planning Commission, objective data provided by our consultant verifies that the cost of implementing what has been suggested will increase the project beyond a level that the regional partnership is likely to support. Although we will not be able to fully comply with all requested information, we can provide the following response to the Commission's request to evaluate the addition of a third site to the Piney/Whitlock alternative that will maintain the same minimum requirements for microwave loop diversity and RF redundancy benefits provided by the Peters Mountain site: · Estimated cost to implement this alternative is between $2 million - $3 million. · Significant time is required to investigate the following for this alternative. o Multiple microwave path studies at cost of $3,000-$4,000 per path o Additional 800 MHz propagation analysis to determine actual coverage o Additional federal and state regulatory review and work o Three additional land use approvals that will be required o Site acquisition at three additional locations that will be required (lease or purchase) o Impact of this alternative on overall system coverage design · Regional Partnership o Determination of additional cost shares for akernative(s) o City and University not interested in sharing additional cost for this alternative · Motorola o Any new alternative design proposed will need to be reviewed by vendor o Vendor must verify and be willing to agree to proposed alternative design o Vendor must be willing to guarantee coverage identified in proposed alternative design before final contractual agreement can be reached In consideration of these factors and the importance of moving this project forward, the ECC Management Board vigorously concurs with and supports the recommendation of RCC Consultant's Inc. and the ESPAC Radio Committee that a public radio system design that includes a Peters Mountain tower site is the best system design to address the critical shortcomings of the regions current emergency public safety systems. This system as recommended is critical to the health, welfare and safety of our citizens and to the efficient and effective operations of our public safety responders for a number of reasons, which have been shared with the Planning Commission previously and are detailed in the enclosed attachment. In summary, the proposed system enables Albemarle County, Charlottesville and the University of Virginia emergency response personnel - fire, police and EMS- to communicate directly with each other throughout our region reliably, accurately and simultaneously in the event of a large- 2 scale disaster or normal emergency, at a cost and level of functionality that is not possible under any other proposed scenario. In response to the Commission's request that consideration be given to completing the NHPA Section 106 review before the scheduled public hearings, it is the ECC's desire - based upon legal advice given by Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney for Albemarle County- that public comment and input regarding the potential effects of the proposed tower on historic properties located within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District should be obtained prior to submittal of the project review application with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). This will insure our compliance with the public comment component of the Section 106 review process, since the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings will afford the public multiple opportunities to comment before we file the Project Review Form with Finally, time will also not permit the development of photo simulations utilizing stealth techniques before the scheduled hearing and it is our understanding t~om the planning department that time will not afford the ability to complete a view shed analysis for the hearing as well. ECC staff does intend to provide this information as soon as possible and prior to consideration of the Special Use Permit by the Board of Supervisors. Should there be any questions or if the ECC management board and staff can be of further assistance please let Wayne Campagna, our project coordinator know. Sincerely, Leonard W. Sandridge Chairman, ECC Management Board cc: ECC Management Board Albemarle County Planning Commission Members Tom Hanson, Director Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Wayne Campagna, ECC Project Coordinator Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development 3 Regional 800 MHz Public Safety, Radio Project Why This System is Critical for Our Community. elmproves Radio Communications Coverage >Eliminates the many dead spots which currently exist -- particularly for emergency responders using portable radios while in the field eSupports Multiple Channel Radio Communications >Allows public safety, and public service agencies to communicate during different emergency incidents occurring simultaneously ·Improved Inter-Agency & Intra-Ageney Communications (Interoperability) >All County, City, University, and Airport users on a single common infrastructure ·Significantly Reduces Interference >Provides clear, immediate, reliable communication among public service providers during both normal and emergency operations · Allows Formation of Specialized Talk Groups >More efficiently meets emergency communications needs during major events, e.g., ~Sugar Hollow Dam floods >Fire and evacuation of 300 elderly patients at Piedmont Health Care Facility ·Provides Independent, Dedicated Radio Communications System >Operates without outside assistance from commercial service providers during natural disasters and local emergencies. emote Reliable than our Current System >Microwave technology less vulnerable to a loss in service Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy Albemarle County Department of Planning and Commtmity Development Kreines & Kreines, Inc. December, 2000 County Wireless Policy Page 1 of 2 Click here for sports, dance and special interest classe~ Official Website of the County of Albemarle Privacy Policy Albemarle County Wireless Policy In December 2000, Albemarle County adopted a Personal Wireless Facilities Policy as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Policy is not an ordinance, it provides guidance in the review of applications for Wireless Facilities. Revisions to the County's Zoning Ordinance are recommended in the Policy. Action to amend the Zoning Ordinance will require additional review by staff and action by the Board of Supervisors. Any questions about the Policy may be directed to Bill Fritz by email or by phone at (434) 296-5832. To view and print the document below you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0 or greater [;,,r,, i, · .... ~Albemarle County Wireless Policy (size over 8MB) If your browser does not show buttons above, please click on a link below: Home Pa~e Greetings At a Glance Who's Who http ://www.albemarle.org/planning/wirelesspolicy.htm 10/29/01 Introduction This Policy for personal wireless service facilities is based on the following: The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Albemarle County's zoning authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities ("cell towers"). Albemarle County has significant natural, scenic and historical resources. Thomas Jefferson chose Albemarle County for his 'homesite and as the site for the University of Virginia. The reason for those choices is why many others have come to revere this place ... and why County residents must be stewards of the land. Personal wireless service facilities are not well understood by some. This Policy is intended to help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understand planning and zoning for personal wireless service facilities. There are reasonable and feasible options to highly visible personal wireless service facilities and Albemarle County will require them. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 1 Introduction Albemarle County ... Land of magnificent vistas. Place of rich history° Maintained through private stewardship. Governed by a tradition of planning and zoning. "The Rocks" Mountain at 1-64 at Ivy Interchange. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 2 Purpose, Principles & Intended Achievements Introduction The purpose of the personal wireless service facilities policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to recommend standards and approaches for Albemarle County to use in the review of personal wireless service facility applications. Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this Policy in preparing applications for personal wireless service facilities. Planning Commissioners, Supervisors and staff should follow this Policy when evaluating personal wireless' service facilities applications. · This Policy is intended to allow for the provision of personal wireless service facilities. Regulations based on the following principles are recommended: · The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibility. Albemarle County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application to enable the County to measure the visibility of a facility. The less a pet'§onal wireless service facility can be seen, the more likely it is that it will be approved. · Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas. · Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied unless mitigated, sited, located and designed so as to minimize visibility. · Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites. · Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should demonstrate why they couldn't be located in an Opportunity Site. · Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal wireless service facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance Area. A successful personal wireless service facilities policy will achieve the following: · Protection of Albemarle County resources. · A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants. · Equal evaluation and review for all applicants. · The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility applications. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 3 Introduction SUMMARY OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES POLICY This Policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The Policy encourages the construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community. Visibility is the primary focus in the review of personal wireless service facilities. Facilities with limited visibility are encouraged. Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline and they should be provided with an adequate backdrop so that they are not skylined. Personal wireless, service facilities should not adverse, ly impact resources identified in the Open Space Plan or designated as Avoidance Areas. Personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible. Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district. Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the area. Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize Visibility. The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wireless service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible.. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 4 The Situation h~ the Year 2000 Below is an example of the type of facility not supported by the County. This is a rtl-location of personal wireless service facilities near Boyd Tavern on a lattice tower. The microwave relay can be used for backhaul by both Cellular and PCS carriers, which also use wireline (telephone) for backhaul when it is readily available. Personal Wireless Service Facil/ties Policy - Albemarle County - Page 8 The Situation in the Year 2000 When personal wireless service facility sites are smaller, they aren't as easily seen, even though there may be more of them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and State Law give localities the choice. There are five different personal wireless service facility sites in this photosimulation. Although there may never be any sites in this area, they have been photosimulated to show how they can blend with the landscape. Albemarle County requires less visible and less intrusive solutions such as those shown here. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 10 The Situation in the Year 2000 This Policy shows w~reless carriers how to deploy wireless facilities in a manner that respects the Albemarle County environment and the community's values. Albemarle County will approve those applications that comply with adopted policies, plans, ordinances m~d this Policy and Albemarle Cotmty will deny those that do not comply. Telecommunications facilities in the Pantops area have been successfully blended into the built environment. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 11 Definitions Definitions Analog - In radio telephony, a process where voice messages are electronically replicated and amplified as they are carried from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna. Antenna - A whip (omni-directional antenna), panel (directional antenna), disc (parabolic antenna) or Similar device used for transmission and/or reception of radio frequency signals. Panel antennas are used by both Cellular and PCS carriers. Avoidance Area - Locations in Albemarle County where visible personal wireless service facilities should not be located. An avoidance area is not a "prohibited area,"'since there are conditions under which personal wireless service facilities might be located in an avoidance area. Backhaul - A method for relaying signals from one wireless facility to anofher and from the Wireless facility to a common carrier. Methods of backhaul include microwave relay and wireline. Camouflage - A way of painting and mounting a personal wireless service facility that requires minimal changes to the host structure in order to accommodate the facility. Cellular - A mobile telephone service operating in the 800 MHz spectrum. Co-location (Collocation) - The use of a common personal wireless service facility or common site by two or more wireless license holders or by one wireless license holder for more than one type of communications technology and/.or placement of two or more personal wireless service facilities on adjacent properties. Comprehensive Plan - The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan establishes governmental policy to help guide public and private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization. Concealment - To enclose a personal wireless service facility within a natural or man-made feature resulting in the facility being either invisible or made part of the feature enclosing it. Design - The appearance of personal wireless service facilities such as their materials, colors and shape. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 12 Definitions It is the intent of Albemarle County to require the use of the least intrusive means possible to provide coverage. The carrier should locate the personal wireless service facility here and site personal wireless service facilities witl-dn trees. The personal wireless service facility should not be sited along the ridgeline The personal wireless service facility should not be sited at a ridgetop The carrier should desi~ personal wireless service facilities with dual- polarized antennas or a less visible antenna system. Photosimulation of a monopole with dual-polarization in the Blue Ridge Mountain. area of Western Albemarle County. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 18 Location Location Albemarle County developed within am.d around its mountain resources. Mountain resource areas, as designated in the Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, should be avoided when locating personal wireless service facilities. Crozet with Bucks Elbow Mountain in the background. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 23 Location Avoidance Areas have been identified by Albemarle County. These are areas that have resources of significance to the County and where hhe unwise siting of Personal Wireless Service Facilities could result in adverse impacts. See the map on page 26. Albemarle County has identified those resources that are important areas to preserve or conserve as open space. These resources are identified in the Open Space Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space Plan's stated objectives include protecting "the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and Growth Areas," preserving and managing "the County's natural resources in order to protect the environment and to conserve resources for future use," and preserving "the County's scenic resources as being essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." The placement, construction and/or modLfication of personal wireless service facilities should be reviewed for compliance with the Goals and Objectives of the Open Space Plan. The precise boundaries of resources identified in the Open Space Plan are less important than areas where a personal wireless service facility could compromise the identff4ed resources. Photosimulation of a lattice tower located outside of the Southwest Mountains National Rural Historic District. The Southwest Mountains contain multiple identified resources that are characteristic of Avoidance Areas. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County ~ Page 24 Location Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, contains additional resources which are not identified in the Open Space Plan. Among those resources are historical, motmtain and scenic resources. Impact on any identified resource must be evaluated for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Many historical features within the County, while not having National or State designation, are of significant local importance. Boyd Tavern, shown above, is an example of a structure with significant local importance. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 25 Siting The most important guideline for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is x~isibility. · The definition of a well-sited personal wireless service facility is that it would be virtually invisible to most viewers. Such a facility would be an improvement over a facility that is in the open and very visible. · A poorly-sited personal wireless service facility is one that has visual impact. · The degree to which a personal wireless service facility Can be made invisible or the degree to which it has visual impact is often the most important standard by which it can be evaluated. Visibility is objective because visibility can be measured. Aesthetics is not suggested as a standard and should not be used to evaluate personal wireless service facilities. Aesthetics is subjective and cannot be measured uniformly amongst all viewers. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 38 Due to their high visibility, these are examples of facilities that generally do not meet the County's policy. Design Lattice towers may be acceptable if appropriately sited. Guyed towers are commonly used in more remote locations where backhaul is not available. The dish on the guyed tower at right is to provide backhaul because wireline is not available to do so. The use of land based wirelines for backhaul is preferred. Lattice towers are capable of great height, but they are highly visible. Guyed towers, capable of even greater heights, require large expanses of land for guy wire anchors. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 45 Agenda Item #: PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL Co~~~:,, Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's r~ral economy, natural resources, history and beauty Proposed Radio Tower on Peters Mountain - Special Use Permit (SP-2001-48) Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, January 9, 2002 RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Good evening. My name is Jeff Wemer. I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. This has been a healthy process of asking questions and finding out answers not only about the wisdom of putting a radio tower in a Historic District, but also about the 800-Mhz system. Yet we find many questions and concerns that remain unanswered. We have urged that the impact on the Historic District be properly considered. In a November work session, Staff stated that they are in consultation with DHR. On Monday, I spoke with the Director of the DHR. There has been no consultation. We have asked about whether or not this tower will be lighted. We asked for the FAA to be contacted since we believe that lighting this tower could be a critical issue in evaluating the tower's visibility. We still don't have an answer. We have suggested that since AT&T twice rejected a tower on their property, the County should confmn with them that a tower at their gate and on their private road is acceptable. We don't have an answer. We have urged further exploration of the 800-Mhz interference issue and the possibility of FCC action. We have shared with you information from the FCC, the industry, and other jurisdictions that clearly indicate a problem. We have directed you to a joint letter to the FCC from a number of public safety groups that states, "existing public safety radio systems in the 800-MHz band [are] increasingly facing interference from commercial [radio systems]." Yet we believe these concerns have not been adequately addressed. We have brought to your attention the ~ for 800-Mhz systems to be initially under-engineered. Yesterday I spoke with a gentleman in Fulton County Georgia's communications department. He pretty much confmned that this is a reality with 800-Mhz. It was interesting to hear how often extra costs are involved with Motorola systems. The Virginia State Police opted to use 150-MHz for their state-wide radio. In a report to the Governor, they reference the difficulties and spiraling expense that Florida is having with their proposed 800-MHz system--more specifically, they state, "problems with the Florida project can be linked to the decision to go to 800-megahertz..." How much more money will it ultimately cost to make this system work as intended? Fairfax started with eight towers, it now has fourteen. Prince William County has eight. Chesterfield County started with three towers and now has nine. Hamilton County, Ohio needed 15 towers. Each of these counties is about half the Size of Albemarle. Could Albemarle ultimately need more towers? If Motorola and the consultant say we need more towers, how many more will be proposed in the Historic District or on other mountain ridges in the County? And, who will pay for them? No one need feel bad about asking these questions at this time, as much of this information is relatively recent. The information on the FCC website was only posted in late November. All that we ask of'the Supervisors is to take the time to get these and other lingering questions answered before taking · VA 22747 Proposed Radio Tower On Peters Mountain - Special Use Permit (SP-2001 ~48) Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors January 9, 2002 Section I Section Il Section III Section IV Section V Section VI Section VII Section VIII Nextel Coverage Map 800-Mhz Radio System Interference Reports (Data continues to be collected by APCO*) News Reports, Misc. Re: Issues Involving 800-Mhz Systems Information From Association of Public Safety Communications Officials* · 800-Mhz System Interference Update · Best Practices Manual Information From Federal Communications Commission Re: 800-Mhz Interference · Joint Letter To The FCC From: Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International Association of Fire Chiefs International Association of Chiefs Of Police Major Cities Chiefs Association National Sheriffs Association Major County Sheriffs Association National Public Safety Telecommunications Council · Nextel Proposal to FCC For Regulatory Action Examples of "Anti-Interference" Ordinances Virginia State Police Report to the Governor Re: 150-Mhz Radio System State DHR Information · Review Process, Project Review and Tower Review Forms National Network - Southwest VA/West VA Area Page 1 of 1 ~l ~ ~ ~ew to our Web ~ite? ~ister no,/~ Southwest VA/West VA Area Approximate Nexte~ digital cellular coverage and local Nextel Direct Connect service area Approximate Nextel digital cellular coverage beyond local Nextei Direct Connect service area Local Sales Locations De~iled City Lis~i~g Check Coverage ~n Another Area View Rate Plans In Your Area Home I ?ho:oe-s_&. $_er¢ices t ¢;ustoroer~upport [ Wire,ss Web I ©2001 Nextel Communications. All rights reserved. Copyright and ~isc!ai~er Negice By accessing this site, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy. Customer Care 1-800-639-611 Z; Hoar_rS of APCO Survey on Cellular Interference to 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Systems http://www,davidschoenberger, netJcellularinterference/apcotable.htm Chandler, AZ 2ity of Chandl'er ~olice, Fire, and Public Works Trunked 800- MHz, MDT Data 800-MHz Phoenix, AZ Victoria, BC Dntario, CA Jchmond, CA Denver, CO Lakewood, CO 7t. Lauderdale, FL 7t. Lauderdale, FL Phoenix Police and Fire Dept. Corp of the City of Victoria State Department of rransportation Denver Police Department EEB Lakewood PD, Wes! Metro FD City of Fort Lauderdale lroward County telecommunications Police and Fire Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works Public Safety/Special Emergency Police, Fire, EMS, and Public Works Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works, Parks, College Security, and Mall Security Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works, and Beach Patrol Police, Fire, EMS, and Local Govemment Mobile Data Conventional VI-IF 51lA rmnked, .Analog, Voice rmnked Analog and Digital Voice Mth MDTs rrunked, Analog, and Digital Voice Trunked Trunked, Simulcast, Voice, and Analog 806-821 821-824 YA 106-821 ~06-821 821-824 821-824 ]06-821 Nextel, and possibly others Nextel Cleamet? N/A Nextel? ~qextel and ¢ossibly :ellular Nextel Nextel Cellular sites ~one [aone None N/A ~one None ~one ~one None Depending on cell site, a cone of silence may be from 200 rards to 1/4 mile. Currently 3/4 mile interference radius around Nextel towers. Boosting power to mitigate interference and Nextel experimenting with filters. Portables talkout problems, static in mobiles, blocking. Coverage marginal when ~ystem installed. Now fignificant signal on data :hannel but radios are unable :o access trunk site (Big ?~ock).. Interference at ?richmond/San Rafael Bridge Fell and adjacent maintenance station. Changed frequencies many Iimes without success. Numerous sites cause loss of :ontrol channel. Appears to have front end overload which Nextel is working on. MTS-2000 handhelds &sense near Nextel Sites. Noise floor raised by near-by cellular sites. Mobiles not able to access system. Use of spectrum analyzer does not identify discrete interfering signals. RFI , ~ddressed on :ase-by-case ?inellas County Police, Fire, Frunked' ~asis. Nextel Government - Radio EMS, and ~malog Voice :hen changes Largo, FL Division Public Works System · 306-821 Nextel ~requency Police, Fire, EMS, Local Information Government, Trunked, Technology Public Works, Analog, and- Nextel has a new site that Miami, FL Department and Transit Digital · N/A Nextel None :aused new coverage holes. Analog Orange County 806/821 Nextel Drlando, FL Sheriffs Office Sheriff Trunked 806-821 DdaVista Site None Martin County Fire Fire and gtuart, FL Rescue Rescue l'runked 800 821-824 .~/A' N/A Eellular ~roviders in ?ulton Fulton County Police, Fire, [ndnstrial Emergency EMS, Public rrunked, 3oulevard Portables desensed in ~tlanta, GA CommunicatiOns Works Analog, Data 806-821 ~ea None .ndustrial blvd area Both systems have frequencies ~djacent to control channels. DeKalb County ~11 public ~lextel and ~en close to commercial DeKalb. County, GA Public Safety ~afety rrunked . 806-821 gouthem Linc None site, blanks out radio. New holes have appeared where coverage had been present. New cell towers Police, Fire, installed. Radio system Eospital, and operating within Douglasville, GA 2ity of Dougiasville Public Works rrunked g06-824 Cell Towers None specifications. Some commercial subscriber units operate only 1 O0 kHz. away from the city's control channels. The filters on the city's equipment are maxed Police, Fire, Motorola 800- out.- A safety concern was EMS, Public MHz expressed. Receiver desense Works, and $martzone due to frequency proximity Savannah, GA 2ity of Savannah City ~malog g06-824 Nextel None and distance of Nextel unit.q_ ' Police, Fire, . Noise floor raised. Radios in ~aui County Police EMS, Public vicinity of cellular transmitters Lahaina/Kihei, HI Department . Works Frunked 321-824 Nextel None are unusable Police, Fire, EMS, Wastewater amalog Water District, Trunking Nextel and Pulse-like interfering signal Airport, and gystem and some other that moved randomly across Johnson County County Bus Mobile Data identified three channels and caused Olathe, KS Sheriffs Office Security System. 306-824 source. None' bursts of static. ~tate ?olice/Other 5ouisiana State · ~tate and Baton Rouge, LA Police Federal lYunked 806-824 N/A None No other information Duxbury, MA ~I/A ~rovided. Police, Fire, Public Works, Schools, Highways, Baltimore, MD ~q/A Utilities Trunked 806-821 Nextel ~lone' Overloading front end Relocating Police, Fire, Paging, and ransmitters Lewiston/Auburn EMS, Public other md adding Working with Comp Auburn and Lewiston, [}11 Emergency Works, and Digital, commercial voting Communications of Verooes, ME Corem City Motorola Astro ~T/A transmissions ~eceivers NJ Intermittent loss of audio, garbled audio, and loss of APCO 25 ability of one unit to hear Police, Fire, 2ompliant audio. New monopole towers Michigan State EMS, and 3igital Cellular 870- with sectorized panel arrays Howell, MI Police Public Works rnmked ~21-824 MHz Band None have been installed in area. Nextel has obtained licensing on 851.4875 and 854.6375 at Gladstone Police, Fire, '~icensed 1,000 watts. These are mobile Department - Public EMS, Public ~lextel tower transmitter frequencies for this 31adstone, MO Safety Works Conventional g06-821 site in Liberty None agency. Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works, Inspections, and General Analog 2ary, NC Town of Cary Government rrunked g06-821 .Xl/A None Interference on one channel. rwo years of problem with a tocumented officer safety MDT and . issue as a direct result. Radio Police, Fire, Analog ~tad out-of-range tone due to rigard, OR WCCCA and EMS rrunked 806-824 Nextel None Nextel overloading portable. Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works, Gen. 3ervlces., ?ark, and Earfier on M859.4625. Local Carriers usually on control Memphis, TN City of Memphis ,3ovemment. l'runked 821-824 N/A ~lone channels. Police, Fire, Missouri City Police EMS, and Trunked Missouri City, TX Department Public Works Analog 806-821 N/A N/A Wiztronies, Ine Digital signals in combining ~rivate) Backup for Fire, Public Trunked, stages caused broadband Bellingham, WA mblic safety system Works Analog, Voice N/A Nextel None noise. SmartZone trunked system ?olice, Fire, and ~lextel Site at EMS, Public Motorola/MDI' ~5th and Seattle, WA City of Seattle Works MDT system 806-821 .~oosevelt None Nextel · reduced )OWeT, removed - some ', frequencies, :hanged Police, Fire, ~atalog and antennas and EMS, and Digital uptilted new Seattle, WA Ring County Public Works rrnnked, MDT g06-824 Nextel antenna.~ Police, Fire, Maintenance, Seattle, WA ?oft of Seattle Operations rrnnked 306-821 Nextel None PSAP, Police, ~lark Regional Fire, EMS, 2ommunicafion Public Works, Trunked ' Desen'se within 1/4 to 1/2 mile Vancouver, WA ~.gency and Transit Analog, Data ~06-824 Nextel None of Nextel sites. Four sites overlap area and have moderate signal levels. Signals drop out and receivers squelch up fight. No ~.ommunications are possible in the clover-leaf. Measured - Nextel site at 20 dbm carriers from Nextel Highway EF Johnson [-205 and SR site about 1/4 mile away. Vancouver, WA wsDoT Maintenance Multinet 806-824 500 None Several cell sites in area do Police, Fire, EMS, Public 810- Works, 816 Other Public Green Bay, WI Green Bay Police transit, Parks Tmnked 855-861 Safety Agency ~one SM, R Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio tmnked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 1 of 11 SMR SITE Contrary to the suggestions within the trade publications, there are still numerous SMR operators throughout the Country and our firm is proud to represent the interests of dozens of successful operators. Below we will provide practical information and advice on what SMR operators can do to keep up and get ahead in this highly competitive area. Although the going has gotten tougher, with the right strategy you can still get where you want to be. y800 MHz Interference: Possible Solutions? Wa. shington D.C. July 19, 200~... For most of the past decade, public safety users in the 800 MHz band have been experiencing radio frequency interference from commercial wireless systems operating in adjacent frequency bands. When the public safety community initially began using the 800 MHz band, cellular systems were not in use. However, the proliferation of cellular systems and the increased public safety demand for spectrum in the 800 MHz band have since resulted in unacceptable radio interference to the public safety users. The 800 MHz spectrum band was first made available by the FCC for land mobile communications services in 1974 when the band was reallocated from TV Channels 70 to 83 for use by public safety communications systems, private two-way radio, SMR, and cellular systems. Given the then-current state of 800 MHz technology,, in which all systems employed similar analog high power and high site system architecture, the FCC had no reason to expect that two-way systems allocated for these different uses would be in any way incompatible and might cause interference to each other. There are three typical kinds of 800 MHz interference. The first is Intermodulation Products (IMP). IMP are unwanted signal frequencies that can be generated in antennas when two or more simultaneous desired signals pass through a non-linear junction. This can create distortions which are transmitted along with the desired signals. The second type of interference is Wideband Noise. All transmitters generate some amount of noise, and the FCC limits permissible transmitter noise to a fraction of the total transmitter power. If the total transmitter power is very strong at the public safety receiver (usually because of immediate proximity to a commercial base station), the small fraction of http://www.sa-lawyers.net/smr.htm 12/12/01 SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio tnmked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 2 of 11 power allocated to noise can still be enough to affect the public safety receiver. The third type of interfere nce is Receiver Overload. This occurs when a radio receiver is exposed to extremely strong signals and the amplifying circuits in the receiver are overloaded, thus causing the receiver to fail to properly receive the desired signal. Reportedly this type of interference rarely occurs, except in cases where the public safety receiver is operated within a few feet of the wireless base station antenna. To identify the scope and nature of the growing interference trend, the FCC requested that an independent task force be created to address the issue. The group commissioned to analyze the interference problem includes Motorola, APCO, Nextel, the CTIA, and the Public Safety Wireless NetWork (PSWN) Program. While this independent task force is addressing ways to solve the interference problem, they have come up with alternative measures which wireless providers and public safety communications system managers can take to (1) mitigate such interference in existing deployments; and (2) prevent such interference in new or future commercial wireless and/or public safety radio installations. Notice the two companies involved in the task force. Looks like someone at the FCC told them to clean Up their act or risk losing out on all that juicy preferential treatment they have been receiving from our friendly neighborhOOd Commission in recent years! Existing Svstems: The FCC's policy calls for a commercial wireless provider or a public safety agency that believes it is experiencing interference should contact the other carder operating in the affected area believed to be the cause of said interference. The FCC would like for parties to cooperate in determining the most efficient allocation of costs and resources necessary for interference mitigation, taking into account the costs and benefits of mitigative actions. In other words, "what do we look like, a government agency that is supposed to regulate competing uses of limited radio spectrum? Fix it yourselves?' There are a number of possible system modifications that can be made that would substantially reduce existing interference. Retuning the commercial wireless operator's channels further away from the public safety operator's channels is one possibility. A separation of 1.5 MHz or more between these channels has been effective in alleviating interference in most instances. Another way to reduce existing interference is to modify the commercial wireless provider's power levels, antenna height or antenna placement characteristics. Reducing the ERP of a wireless carrier's operations can reduce or eliminate public safety receiver overload interference. In addition, increasing the height of the nearby wireless operator's antenna site, changing the antenna radiation pattern, employing tighter beam-width antennas, or adding more gain in conjunction with reduced transmitter power to maintain the same ERP, all may reduce undesired signal levels. Assuring the proper operation of base station equipment also can help cut down on the amount of SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio fru~ed radio systems- SctJiwaninger & A.. Page 3 of 11 harmful interference created. Poorly operating or degraded equipment has been known to exacerbate interference problems. Public Safety entities can reduce interference they receive by increasing the local strength of their system. The parties' should also.look into adding more proximate public safety base stations, increasing ERP, providing better transmission antennae, and replacing existing mobile and handheld units with more interference-resistant equipment. New or Expanded Systems: The most critical factor to preventing interference between public safety and commercial wireless operators' systems is comprehensive advance planning ' and frequency coordination between the entities. This becomes especially important when either partyis being introduced into an area with an incumbent system. Advanced coordination among public safety and commercial wireless providers should result in the signal strength of both public safety and commercial transmission being comparable in the overlapping service areas, thereby reducing the likelihood of interference. Another way to alleviate potential interference is to minimize the susceptibility of receivers to interference. Public safety users purchasing new equipment for use in high RF environments should ensure that the receivers have favorable intermodulation specs. Additionally, public safety users should avoid using external antennas when operating portable devices in vehicles, especially when these portables have been designed to provide in-building coverage, as this has a tendency to aggravate the effects of interference. Interference may also be avoided by adapting the system design criteria for a particular area. In those instances in which public safety systems will operate in high nosie levels within the local environment, interference to public safety operations can be minimized or prevented by increasi0g the signal strength of the desired signal levels above local noise levels. Public Safety systems in urban and other intensive RF environments must be designed to a higher degree of robustness than was required before the advent of. multiple adjacent and nearby commercial networks. System designs that produce higher signal strength levels throughout the service area will create a more robust system resistant to interference from commercial wireless systems operating in the area, as well as from other interference sources. The bottom line is this: Because the FCC is currently not in the mood to-solve the problems associated with interference in the 800 MHz band, it is up to the carriers and public safety entities to work out solutions amongst themselves. We have provided you .with Some ideas herein for using technical means to resolve these problems. If the above will not, or has not worked for your particular interference problems, and you are interested in pursuing other non-technical methods of resolving interference problems, please give us a call. Always remember that there is http://www.sa-lawyers.net/smr.htm 12/12/01 SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio trunked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 4 of 11 more than one way to skin a bat! 3-G RAISES THE CLAMOR FOR MORE...F_R_EQ_._U.E__N_C.!.E.S_ March 5, 2001...While nobody seems to know just when or how 3-G is coming, orwho the winners and losers will be, everybody agrees it is' going to be the new arena. In preparation for the mobile internet, President Clinton ordered the FCC to identify spectrum. Thus, in January of this year, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking {"NPRM") which sought comment on various questions. One of the questions the FCC asked for comment on was whether more spectrum is actually needed, or do providers have sufficient capacity. (New technological efficiencies are expected, and lots of spectrum is currently "warehoused.") One of the key components of this decision making process will be the need to harmonize American 3-(3 banding with the rest of the world. Chairman Powell is clearly interested in maintaining-or regaining-U.S, leadership in the global information economy, and one might imagine that any new Bush appointees to the Commission, Democrat or Republican, will bring aboard that same concern: So it may be that the FCC will ultimately err on the side of finding too much spectrum rather than giving incumbents "too much" protection. et surprisingly, the Bells and AT&T's of this wodd waxed eloquent in their comments about the great need to dedicate as much spectrum as possible and, of course, abolish spectrum caps. Incumbents, of course, can get along just fine elsewh ere. With.this in mind, it is important to note that the NPRM mentioned the 806-960 MHz band as a possible 3-G band! The Commission acknowledged that PLMR and SMR operators were already occupying this band, but sought comment here because the International Telecommunications Union had suggested this band for global 3-g consideration. Fortunately, the CTIA, TIA, PCIA joint comment-and both Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless agreed that the 800 MHz band should not be reallocated to 3-G. Virtually all the commentors agreed that the 1710-1850 government band should be allocated yesterday, however NTIA's comment is still pending. (They're government-they're allowed to be late!) As to the 2110-2165 and 2500-2690 MHz bands, you can bet a storm is a-brewin'! These frequencies are most certainly needed to harmonize with the rest of the globe. Yet in America, educational institutions and rural areas already depend on these frequencies, and argue that it would be a breach of trust to for the FCC to oust the incumbents. (The Bells had some concerns about the incumbents as well-after all, if you don't yet know where the incumbents are to be relocated, you can't properly value the frequencies for your bid!) Sprint, a provider of fixed broadband wireless in these bands, argues that the 3-G quest of SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio trul~k~d radiO systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 5 of 11 harmonizing frequencies with the rest of the world is not important, because global roaming is not feasible, and is not required. J Washington, DC: January 26, 2000. EDACS A Problem For Nextel To date, we knOw of no EDACS system that has been relocated by Nextel in its efforts to consolidate the upper 800 MHz channels. Such systems have been operated by private card ers providing service to local governments and by local governments themselves to provide E911 services, etc. The problem appears to be that Nextel is unable to construct a redundant EDACS system for the purpose of creating a seamless transition. We don't know how long Nextel will be stymied in its efforts, but since Nextel is focusing on the easiest relocation problems first, we suspectthat public safety entities using EDACS may well be the last (if ever) relocated. Washington, DC: January 19, 2000. Time to Relocate? Maybe...maybe not! We are taking the initiative for our SMR clients facing relocation and compliance with Section 90.699. We have prepared a lengthy contract which incorporates the rules and decisions of the FCC, while placing the necessary burden on EA licensees to demonstrate that relocation is, first, possible, and second, will be performed in a logical manner to result in comparable spectrum and facilities to accomplish a seamless transition. This agreement has been presented to Nextel for review, however, we have not gotten much feedback on it. You see, Nextel's boilerplate relocation agreement, which we refer to as "a pocketful of crystals and see ya' later," is only three pages long. Ours is seventeen pages long and most of it is specifically designed to protect incumbent operators. It's going to be a long negotiation. Washington, D.C.: December 13, 1999. Relocation for Incumbents on 800 MHz Perhaps Not as Easy as Everyone Thought. Even before the FCC's auction in 1997, which imposed wide-area licenses on top of already licensed frequencies, some critics warned that relocation by incumbents may not be as smooth as the Commission's rules predicted it would be. Nextel, a big winner of spectrum at the auction, has thus far finalized deals with over 400 licensees of the total 1,000 incum bents at stake. Nextel purchased the licenses instead of moving systems in most of these sealed deals. However, Geoffrey Steam, Nextel's Director of Corporate Strategy, states that Nextel is de- emphasizing acquisition going into the mandatory negotiation phase which began December 4. It may not be as easy as Nextel and the FCC thinks, however, because problems persist for industry incumbents relocating. One industry attorney, Robert Schwaninger (do you know him?) http://www.sa-lawyers.net/smr.htm 12/12/01 SMR Special/zed Mobile Radio two-way radio trunked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 6 of 11 highlights some of the glitches for incumbents. Nextel's contract is skeletal and does not address all of the relevant points. Also system problems can occur in the transition period if incumbents are not proactive in negotiations with Nextel...Incumbents should- be assured that Nextel will provide a redundant system to ensure a srnooth transition to their new frequencies. To determine whether the transition will be a smooth one incumbents are encouraged to ask what type of equipment will be used in the transition. Incumbents should also be sure that relocation channels offered by Nextel are comparable to the ones they are currently using. During negotiations, incumbent operators Should understand that they are not obligated to accept frequencies which are incomparable to their own from the auction winners, advises Mr. Schwaninger. LOcal operators are only obligated to engage in good faith negotiations and they are not obligated to take a Nextel deal. Mr. Schwaninger avers that in the end, relocation on the 800 MHz band is far more complex than most people including the FCC anticipated, and that his duties for clients have involved~applying the realities of business to the optimistic hopes and dreams of the Commission. Don't trek down this twisted path alone....call us! Washington, D.C.: December 13, 1999. The Alliance for Radio Competition (ARC) Criticizes Department of Justice for Its Settlement with Nextel. In 1995, a consent decree was signed by DOJ and Nextel that limited Nextel's and Motorola's spectrum holdings in the 900 MHz band in top markets. However, over the summer DOJ and Nextel entered a settlement so that Nextel can place transmitters 26 miles away from cities' cores. Sources within the Alliance for Radio Competition (ARC) say that this settlement essentially eliminates the consent decree that was meant to promote service from competitors on the frequencies. Nextel's bid for the 900 MHz licenses is held by bankrupt Geotek Communications and hinges on modification of the decree. Me,ex Communications, the leader in the coalition of dispatch operators, is also interested in Geotek's lice nses and asserts that nothing has changed since the DOJ refused to modify the agreement and wonders why it chose this 180 degree turnaround. DOJ sources claim that the future potential of dispatch competition on other bands justifies its settlement with Nextel. Mobex and other dispatch operators are taking their case to court this week, and the court must evaluate the decree based on today's realities and not on some "ethereal possibility" of competition from PCS and cellular companies, as ARC sources pointed out. In the name of competition, go forth ye operators. Washington, DC: August 6, 1999. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Consent to Assign or Transfer 900 MHz SMR Licenses. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau approved the application requesting SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio trunked radio Systems-~ Schwaninger & .A., Page'7 of 11 consent to the assignment of a 900 MHz SMR license from SMR Direct USA, Inc. to FleetTalk Partners 900, Ltd. Apd121, 1999, Washington, DC ...The FCC has-made-available to thepublic a list of those entities covered by the Goodman/Chart Order. This list contains all of the call signs and their current licensees, station location, date of issue and expiration, and the frequency...MLH Click the following to view and print: Alaska - Florida / Georgia - Illinios ! Indiana - Minnesota / Missouri - Nevada / New York - South Dakota / Virginia - West Virginia Ap~fl 21, 1999: Washington, DC... We have been asked by many clients what steps should be taken to protect incumbent rightS pursuant to the 800 MHz relocation process. Since relocation must occur in accord with the FCC rules and policies and in accord with arms length negotiations between the parties, we suggest that incumbent licensees commence the process by forwarding to the EA licensee the following term sheet. Incumbent licensees are entitled to know whether an EA licensee is, 'indeed, willing and able to engage in relocation. The EA licensee's responses to the following requests will assist incumbents in determining whether the EA licensee, in fact, has the economic, legal, and practical ability to relocate channels. TERM SHEET FOR NEGOTIATION OF 800 MHZ RELOCATION To assist the parties in commencing the process of negotiations of the manner, method and ability of the EA licensees to relocate the incum Dent, site-based licen see and its customers from the upper 200, please provide the following information. All references made herein are to those requirements created by the Federal Communications Commission in its Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-244, PR Docket 93-144, GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No. 93-253 (released July 10, 1997) (MO&O) or to the FCC's First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order, and Second FUrther Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 95-501 (released December 15, 1995) (Report). Provide a description of that equipment which will be provided in relocation which conforms with your company's obligation to provide "comparable facilities," MO&O at 36. Such description should include all parts, transmitters, combiners, controllers, software, units, cable, antennas, or any other hardware which you deem necessary to provide required comparable facilities. 2. Provide the method by which your company will provide a htt~://www.sa-lawvers.net/smr.htm 12/12/01 SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio tmnked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 8 of 11 o o "seamless transition," MO&O at 36 from our company's use of the upper 200 channels to alternative 800 MHz spectrum. Provide a description of the methods which your company will employ to assure that no significant disruption in our operations will occur, arising out of the relocation process. MO&O at 45. Provide a description of the methods which your company proposes for engaging in relocation to comparable facilities in a seamless manner, which does'not include our company's provision of proprietary information, i.e. customer lists. MO&O at 53. Provide copies of all documents which demonstrate your company's compliance with all notification requirements contained within MO&O at 55 & Provide a list of all channels which your company proposes 'will be employed for the purpose of relocation of our facilities. For each of those channels provided under Request No. 6 above, provide the following documents and information: (1) a current copy of that license which demonstrates that your company has authority to operate on the channel; (2) copies of all petitions, objections, finder's preference matters, and motions to dismiss your company's authority to operate on any of the identified channels, which matters have not be decided with administrative or legal finality in favor of your company's maintaining the license(s) in accord with the authorization provided; (3) the date upon which each channel was constructed at its present location; (4) the name of the owner of the site (if not your_~ company) where the channel(s) are presently operated; (5) the periods of time during which the channel has been deconstructed or out of service dudng its license term or any renewal thereof; (6) if obtained by assignment, the. date upon which such assignment was granted and the name of the assignor; (7) and short-space agreement or agreement to employ the channel as a portion of an ESMR system executed by any former licensee of the channel; and (8) all other information relevant to the issue of whether the channel was obtained, constructed, made operational, and continued to be operated in compliance with all applicable rules and policies of the FCC. For those channels identified under Request No. 6 above, provide the following information: (1) a current copy of all licenses granted for operation on the channel within a 70- mile radius of the proposed location where the channel might be used; (2) those rule sections, orders, policies or decisions of the Federal Communications Commission SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way ractio tmnked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 9 of 11 u pon which your company relies for its ability to relocate each subject channel; (3) any engineering exhibit which would be required to be provided in association with an application to modify our existing license to operate on the channel; and (4) any rule sections, orders, policies or decisions of the Federal Communications Commission upon which our company would rely in modifying our license to accommodate relocation. Provide all information required to demonstrate that your company's proposed relocation will not violate the FCC's prohibition against intercategory sharing between SMR and non-SMR channels. MO&O at 106. 10: Provide the means by which your company proposes to pay for all costs associated with the relocation process. Report at 79, including those costs which your company presumes will need to be borne in accord with applicable FCC requirements. 11. Provide all information related to the provision of payment for our customers' loss of service to their equipment, including down time of related vehicles, which might arise out of the relocation process. 12. Provide all information related to your company's placing in operation new facilities, including engineering and frequency coordination, if necessary; and the projected timetable for the completion of such activities. Report at 79. 13. Provide all information, including the names of any contractors which will be used, to build and test the new system, Report at 79, and how such contractors will be paid, including your company's agreement to assure that no lien is placed on the new system by any such person. 14. Provide evidence of all third party consent required for the purpose of effecting your company's proposed relocation method described herein. All information contained herein shall be employed for the purpose of drafting a contract between our corn panies to assure performance of relocation in accord with the rules and policies of .the FCC. You should presume that any statement, fact or proposal contained in your answers will result in the creation of representations and warranties within that contract. If, therefore, your company is unable or unwilling to provide warranties as to each element of this term sheet, your company's refusal to warrant such information should be provided in your responses. All information and responses to this term sheet should reflect the numbering above and mu st reply directly to each request made http://www.sa-lawyers.net/smr.htm .12/12/01 SMR Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio bunked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 10 of 11 herein. All information provided by your company is subject to confirmation and standard due diligence to assure completeness and correctness. Any failure to provide accurate and complete information shall be deemed your company's negligence.or-bad ....... faith, depending on the nature of the erroneous or incomplete information provided, in the parties' efforts to negotiate reasonably a relocation method in accord with the FCC's rules and policies. In you have any questions regarding any request made herein, please direct all such inquiries to Robert Schwaninger, Schwaninger & Associates, 1835 K Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-8837 (fax) 659-0071. March 26, 1999: Washington, D.C. Applying As A Non-Profit - Sb you heard that people are trunking up 900 MHz channels employing non-profit association status and you're thinking that you might try it. Before you do, think about the following: (1) the FCC is scrutinizing applications with the old "FBT" indicator on them; (2) make sure that the association is for real, with members, by-laws, and true loading -- bogus associations need not apply; and (3) make sure that the whole situation is down on paper, including all contracts for supplying repeaters and equipment and what happens to the channels in the event that the association goes bye-bye. We know that there is a lot of home cookin' in application preparation, but for this kind of an application, we strongly urge you to give us a call before you waste a Iot'of time and dough on an application that isn't ever going to fly without some serious preparation. RHS March 22, 1999 New Jersey:Ram Thaw Of Freeze In a rare move, the FCC allowed an applicant some relief from the freeze on expanding existing contours of a general category facility. The New Jersey Transit Authority was allowed to expand existing contours of its existing (almost) statewide system, including adding at least one new site, to provide continuous coverage for the two-channel system. It appears from the order that the waiver requests were well supported with evidence that the impact of grant would be minimal to the FCC's 800 MHz relocation effort. The rare grant of a waiver of the FCC's now long-standing freeze on expanded use of general category frequencies probably won't do much for commercial operators, but it bodes well for public safety or governmental agencies that can show that a waiver (1) will not substantially increase the applicant's use of the requested channels and (2) will serve a public need in providing continuous coverage and (3) will not be necessary to implement for a year (the amount of time it took the FCC to decide this issue)...RHS . March 15, 1999 Washington, D.C.: FCC Establishes CALEA Guidelines The FCC has adopted new rule sections 64.2100- · . SM~c Specialized Mobile Radio two-way radio tmnked radio systems- Schwaninger & A.. Page 11 of 11 2106 in CC Docket 97-213, setting forth the reporting and operational requirements for common carriers' compliance with new Section 229 of the Communications Act, which section incorporates the Communications Assistance for Law .......................... Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA was enacted to assist law enforcement entities in the interception of communications in a rapidly changing technology environment. In essence, the FCC will require reporting of a common carrier's personnel and oversight policies in conforming with CALEA and Section 229 of the Communications Act. Common carriers must file with the FCC a copy of their personnel and oversight procedures within ninety (90) days from the publication of the FCC's Order. The reported procedures must set forth the method by which the common carrier will assist law enforcement personnel; oversee requests for authorized interception; report unauthorized interceptions; create internal controls on privacy; and comply with the applicable sections of the FCC rules. We will be assisting our clients in meeting these requirements, including pro. viding written procedures which will demonstrate compliance with the FCC rules and policies...RHS Schwaninger & Associates 1331 H Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 347-8580 FAX: (202) 347-8607 E-Mail: lawyer~sa,lawyers.net home / bio 's / attctions / star / e_qjti~pmen t / interconnect / lit_~ation / private radio / radio common carrier / broadcast / SBT/public safe.tv / towers/p_agin~g/fees/reports / universal licensing / clec / washin_gton weasel httv ://www.sa-lawvers.net/smr.htm 12/12/01 t'age I oI" UPDATE December 20,2001 800 MHz Radio System Construction of the ~~.. ty800 MHz~ ~Radio S: st¢m_ continues. Completi~' t~pat~~ 2002. Work continues on site selection and construction of the 15 The 15 sites are m various to~e_ra~o_s:.ste~m. ~'~~~ stages of development. ~ Construction has been completed on the new tower at the Communications Center. The old tower has been dismantled. Other Sites include some existing facilities and towers and sites in various stages of planning and construction. Current plans call for all tower sites and the microwave system to be completed by the first quarter of 2002. Much of the radio system equipment has been shipped and staged for installation. Last week the Hamilton County Commissioners approved the purchase of approximately $4 million dollars worth of radios for use on the system. Recently Hamilton County Communications began simulcasting the primary fire dispatch radio traffic on the old low band 33.90 and the 800 system. Simulcasting will remain in place until the number of radios in the field increases to a point making it possible to complete the transition to 800 MHz. At that time we will cease broadcasting on low band. Alpha Numeric Paging System l The Hamilton County AlphaNumeric Paging System has met with success and continues to grow. Many fire departments using the http ://www.hamilton-c o.org/hccc/whatsnew.html 1/8/02 What's New Page 2 of 3 Hamilton County Comm~tnications '~enter hhve purchased ~agers on the paging system for emergency alerting and personal paging. Any agency contracting with Hamilton County Communications for dispafch services may obtain'pagers on the Hamilton County system. The coverage area of the paging system is approximately the 1275 loop. Communications Van The Hamilton County Communications Van has been placed back in service after undergoing major renovations. The Van still appears the same from the outside, however, the radio systems onboard have been completely replaced. The outdated radio consoles have been replaced with radio consoles recently removed from the Communication Center. Radio frequencies are now programmable and the Van is capable of communicating on the new 800 MHz radio system. A supply of 800 MHz portable radios programmed with the various mutual aid talk groups is kept onboard for use at disaster scenes. A new telephone system has been installed and the Van is now wired for a computer network. Future plans include the use of laptops capable of providing selected functions of our Computer Aided Dispatch System and mapping. The upgrades to the Van have made this vehicle a much more valuable asset in meeting your communities needs in time of disaster. Our personnel will now be able to provide the communications necessary for efficient operations and coordination of emergency response,units at the disaster scene. The Communications Van is available to your community not only for disaster situations but also for events such as public safety displays. The Van.may be toured at such events as the annual Forest Park Night Out and the Cub Scout Jamboree at Coney Island If you have any questions or concerns about these projects please contact Mike Bailey from our Agency Directory. Home I Agency Directory I History I Newsletter I Employment ,j3iiD2~;i~T~5 h a~_ _n:___c.o_.or q_/_h cc c/wh als~ 1 ~ ~ UII~IJL} L.III2,1. - t-'age i et 2 Search/Archive } Site Hap I~ About Us ~ Contact Us ~ Home Delivery l~ Advertise Archive 2 Weeks Free 1990-Present Special Sections About the Archive Pricing Plans How to Pay Register Search Tips Sports Arts/Life Opinion Your search for (YMD_date=(01/01/2000 - 12/31/2000)) and ((("nextel") and ("radio"))) found 3 articles. Thank you for searching the'Baltimore Sun Archive. To access the complete text of any single article, click on the link following the summary. If this is too many articles to browse, you may refine, your search with additional words: j(YMD_.'date= (01/01/2000 - 12/31/2000) ) and ( ( ( J Print Edition Wireless Edition Corrections SunSource Store Search/Archive Site fdap About Us Contact Us Home Delivery Advertise I~lap/directions FAQs Article 1 of 3 found. A .n? Arundel police?ork to esca e' dead zones' Published on: March 19, 2000 Edition: HOWARD Section: LOCAL Page: 2B Byline: SUN STAFFLaura Bamhardt Cruising a back road on the midnight shift, Officer Patrick A. Fisher is complaining about the potentially dangerous "dead zones" on Anne Arundel County's police radio system when a car flies by on Belle Grove Road. As if on cue, the radio in his unmarked car chokes and crackles as Fisher swings his car around, turning on his lights and siren to pull over the driver.< Because his police radio is suddenly useless, Fisher picks up his cell phone to call in the tag Click here for the complete text of article 1 Article 2 of 3 found. Arundel police try to end ' dead zones' Published on: March 19, 2000 Edition: ARUNDEL Section: LOCAL Page: lB Byline: SUN STAFFLaura Bamhardt Cruising a back road on the midnight shift, Officer Patrick A. Fisher is complaining about the potentially dangerous "dead zones" on Anne http://nl 13.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?P_Product=B S&p_th... :D&xcal_useweights=n 1/7/02 sunspot.net - archive Page 2 of 2 Arundel County's police radio system when a car flies by on Belle Grove Road. As if on cue, the radio in his unmarked car chokes and crackles as Fisher swings, his car around, tuming on his lights and siren to pull over the .driver. Because his police radio is suddenly useless, Fisher picks up his cell phone to call in the tag number. He Click here for the complete text of article 2 Article 3 of 3 found. Published on: March 13, 2000 Edition: FINAL Section: PLUGGED IN Page: 2C New Nextel i700plus mobile phone offers 2~way radio serviceNextel markets the new i700plus as the workhorse of mobile phones. Made by Motorola, its tough rubber grip makes it feel as if it would hold up to serious use.The mobile phone ($149) comes with the digital two-way radio service that makes Nextel unique, allowing users from the same company or family to call each other for next to nothing.This Direct Connect service isn't for everyone. The walkie-talkie format can be Click here for the complete text of article 3 All articles © The Baltimore Sun and may not be republished, copied or distributed without permission. If you have questions or comments about the archives, please send us feedback. 2 Weeks Free I 1990-Present I Special Sections I About the Archive I Pricing Plans I How to Pay I Register I Search Tips News I Sports I Arts/Life I Opinion I Marketplace Contact us: Submit feedback, send a letter to the editor, submit a news tip, get subscription info, or place a classified ad. SunSpot.net is Copyright © 2001 by The Baltimore Sun. Read the SunSpot.net User Agreement fgr our policie? on copyright, reader privacy and bulletin boards. http://www, firehouse.com/news/2001/6/15_trapped.html Updated: Friday, June 15 - 11:39am .~?~ Home --> News --> Story E-Malt this story to a friend/co-worker Two DE Firefighters Trapped When Radios Fail Discuss Zt Now: Interact in the Forum.~ TERR! SANGZNITZ and DENNIS THOMPSON Jr. DelawareOnline.com TWO Claymont firefighters were stranded in the basement of a burning house early Wednesday when the state's 800 megahertz radio system failed, fire company officials said. Two other firefighters found their exit cut off by fire and were unable to call for hoses because the radios did not work, said Deputy Chief 3ack Anderson, the officer in charge of the scene. Altogether, four firefighters were injured in the incident. "This could have potentially been a deadly mistake," fire company spokes- man Jacob Horente said. "There was no communication inside or outside, and the problem is you can't ask for help." State officials said a blown circuit breaker in a radio signal booster caused the failure, which left firefighters battling a blaze in the 1000 block of Lawndale Road in Longview Farms without working radios to communicate with one another or fire board dispatchers. At one point, firefighters sent an emergency evacuation alert because firefighters were trapped -- a warning that none of the firefighters inside the house heard. "When we were conveying back there's a possibility that firefighters were traPped, we heard them, but they couldn't hear us," said Dave Roberts, the county's emergency services assistant manager. "It was very frustrating." Officials said the firefighters were trapped for two or three minutes. ~~~~0~ million 800- o~neg-a . ' ' ' - si~n~,T~ went ~ce and firefighters have said they have trouble communicating in dead zones around the state and inside large buildings with thick walls. The Legislature recently approved spending an additional $4.3 million for repairs that would include the Claymont area. State technicians t. raced the problem to a circuit breaker in a signal booster atop the Holiday Inn Select on Naamans Road. The signal booster was added about a year ago after problems with the 800-megahertz system emerged, officials said. State officials said the equipment, which is used to boost radio signals in the Claymont vicinity from a full radio site on 1-95 at Talleyville, does not have an alarm to alert anyone if the circuit breaker trips. "This may, have occurred during Honday evening's storm," said Bob Pederson, state Division of Communications manager. "That particular piece of equipment is not alarmed, so no one knows until a user reports it." Pederson could not say whether the circuit breaker had been off longer than that. "By the time we find there's a problem, it doesn't help us," said Morente, the fire company, spokesman. "We have to maintain everything in a state of readiness always." The state switched l~o the 800-megahertz system because it offered greater range and let workers with different agencies talk to one another at the same time during the same emergency. Four firefighters suffered injuries, none of them life-threatening. Three were treated at Wilmington Hospital and released. Morente said Claymont firefighter Tom Stratton dislocated his right shoulder and sprained his wrist when he fell through the first floor and into the basement. Firefighter Duane Reeder refused medical treatment after suffering bumps and bruises when he fell through while trying to pull Stratton to safety. Firefighter 3ackie 3enkins was treated for heat exhaustion, while 3ohn Perry suffered first- and second-degree burns to his legs through his fire gear, Morente said. "They were very lucky," said Roberts, the county emergency services official. "We've been saying all along we hope somebody isn't hurt before this system's fixed." Anderson, the deputy chief, said the radios also worked sporadically during a March fire in a Knollwood row house that claimed the lives of. two residents. "One minute you could hear everything, the next minute you couldn't," he said. Radio-problems in that fire were far less severe and played no role in the victims' deaths, Morente said. Firefighters knew the victims were trapped ahead of time and found their bodies quickly, rvlorente said. Claymont fire officials will consider switching to their old radios because of the latest problem, deputy chief Anderson said. They will meet in the coming days to look for immediate fixes, he said. Morente said when firefighters responded to the 12:16 a.m. call Wednesday, heavy fire lit up the home's first floor. The home was n?t occupied. Firefighter Jimmy Dugan and Reeder manned the first hose into the burning house. "We had fire rolling over our heads," Dugan said. "We had to crawl in under the fire and start knocking it down. Visibility was zero." The hallway floor felt unstable, so the men held back until Reeder noticed a flashlight beam flitting back'and forth through a hole in the floor, Dugan said. The beam came from Stratton, who had fallen through the floor into the basement and was unable to call for help with his radio. Reeder crawled forward on his stomach to try to pull Stratton up, Dugan said. Instead, the floor gave way and Reeder fell in the basement. "At that point, I'm freaking out because the way the floor was burned out, you assume the fire is down in the basement," Dugan said. "I figured they were down there burning." Dugan said he shouted to Capt. Donna Brooks, who was behind him, that two firefighters were down. "She started calling on her radio to tell them to bring a ladd er and some more manpower to try and get them up out of the basement," Dugan said. Brooks' radio would not work, so she ran outside to get help. Deputy chief Anderson, who was at a command center outside the house, said he did not know that anyone was in trouble until he heard two sets of garbled words over the airwaves: "Lawndale" and "evacuate the structure." "We had no idea they even called for the alert," Anderson said. "We were looking at each other.out front saying, 'What the hell is going on?'" No one on the scene got the evacuation notice, Anderson said. The firefighters remained at their posts, unaware others were ira pped. Anderson said he had to use runners to relay basic information to crews, such as where to point their hoses and provide ventilation. That is how he found out about the trapped men.. "You find out you have guys down, you have no idea how long they've been down or where they're at, you can't talk to them at all," Anderson said. An assistant chief in the back of the house had tried several times to call Anderson and tell him about the men. "He was maybe 150 feet away from me, 200 feet, and I couldn't hear him over the radio, Anderson said. Dugan said he ran outside and grabbed a ladder. He and some other firefighters pulled Stratton and Reeder to safety. It took firefighters from Claymont and Brandywine Hundred fire companies, and companies from Linwood and Ogden, Pa., 45 minutes to bring the fire under control. The State Fire Marshal's Office said the fire was sparked by a malfunction in an electrical wire in the basement ceiling and caused an estimated $170,000 in damages. <<< Back ] Print www.wirelessweek.com NEXTEL SPECTRUM SWAP PLAN MAY BE BACK DOOR TO 3G December 3, 2001 12:00am Intertec Publishing Corporation, A PRIMED[A Company. All Rights Reserved. Telephony via NewsEdge Corporation: Nextel Communications' ambitious spectrum swap plan may solve the bulk of public safety interference problems in the'U.S., but its asking price -- 10 MHz of attractive nationwide spectrum at potential 3G frequencies -- ma y raise the ire of the rest of the mobile wireless community. Public safety agencies use frequencies in the lower 800 HHz band that is a hodgepodge of public and private licenses, leading to interference issues that have received significantly more attention since emergency communication problems were highlighted after the Sept. 11 tragedies. The Nextel plan would resolve interference issues, more than double public safeLy's spectrum and clarify its own 800 MHz holdings (see figure). Nextel is proposing to trade 16 MHz for-6 MHz of airwaves,-- a deal that a host of public safely groups have endorsed, especially with Nextel s willingness to pay 0'0 million for the cost of government agencies retuning their equipment. But Nextel's request for a nationwide 10 MHz swathe in the 2.1 GHz mobile satellite service band -- previously identified for possible 3G by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration -- could create problems. While the FCC advocates swapping corn parable spectrum in cases of forced relocation, corn petitors may cry foul because the proposal puts Nextel's disparate chunks of 2G spectrum into one contiguous band while giving it an edge on 3G. And the $500 million donation pales in comparison to the price tag 3G spectrum would bring at auction. "Nextel's strategy on spectrum all along has been getting it on the cheap -- they've been very selective on how they've gone about gathering spectrum, and they avoided auctions," said Eugene Signorini, wireless analyst for The Yankee Group. "This seems to fit right in with that strategy." Nextel hasn't decided whether it would use the spectrum for 3G, but the carrier is anticipating a negative reaction from the rest of the wireless community, said Bob Foosaner, Nextel senior vice president an d chief regulatory officer. "One option is for the cellular carriers to give up 10 HHz of their spectrum to solve the interference problem, but [ don't think they're going to like that option," Foosaner said. "More than likely, they're going to have a knee-jerk reaction." But open opposition to Nextel's plan has been conspicuously absent, probably because no one wants to publicly criticize a plan that has such support from the public safety community at a time when security is at the forefront of public -- and political -- consciousness. Nextel's proposal also may fuel speculation that the carrier may move to CDMA technology, something that would be much easier with consolidated spectrum. Despite upgrading its existing iDEN technology, sources said Nextel continued to seek proposals from CDMA vendors. http ://www.wirelesswee.../index.asp?layout=pfint_page&articlelD=NEi 1201004.2tc&doc id 12/12/01 WirelessWeek.com Page 2 of' 2 <<< Back I Print "Any time you have contiguous spectrum, it opens up more technology options," Foosaner said. "But it's too early to say what we will do. Right now, we're still going forward with our current [iDEN] enhancement plans." << Copyright ©2001 Intertec Publishing Corporation, A PRIMEDIA Company. All Rights Reserved. >> ' hl.tmlZwww.w' e-'_ >-e _ -_i -_ ?_._a~__Q] - ' · = ' 4 c ' 12/.L2J. I)J.~ Emergency calls crowded out 08/05/01 EMI LY TSAO and RYAN FRANK An invisible threat endangers the lives of police officers: Across the country, officers grab for a radio only to find their voices blocked by a nearby cellular phone tower emitting more powerful transmissions. I~'~'~' a six-month investigation, The Oregonian found that in at least 28 states, public safety agencies reported at least one instance of cell phone tower interference with their radios or in-car omputers. No officers have been hurt or killed as a result of the impediment. But agencies across the country say the interference often threatens public safety -- and the lives of police officers and firefighters. Among the incidents: In June, two Denver police officers on a narcotics surveillance witnessed a shooting and tried to call for emergency backup. Their radios wouldn't work until they ran a block. Radios failed again in the same location two weeks later during a foot chase. In April, two Portland officers lost radio connection as they rushed to a reported burglary near the airport. In November 2000, 12 officers in Scottsdale, Ariz., stood within 100 feet of one another but couldn't Use their radios as they searched for a man who had waved a gun during a barroom brawl. In June, 2000, a Tigard police officer faced an armed man and radioed for backup. Only the word "gun" went through. "The worst-case scenario is an officer gets killed," said Detective Aaron Minor of the Scottsda ~e, Ariz., Police DePartment, which estimates that signals from a nearby cell phone tower interfered with police radios at least 300 times during a seven-month period' last year. "Obviously, this could involve the loss of life," said Gloria Tristani, a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission. In interviews, public safety managers and FCC officials say that one cell phone company alone -- Nextel Communications of Reston, Va. - is the source of interference with public safety communications in 21 states. http://www~~reg~n~ive~c~m/printer/printer~ssf?./xm~/st~ry~ssf/htm~-st~~~/99684544623243~32.xm 1/8/02 OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 2 of 8 Unlike other cell phone companies, Nextel uses radio frequencies intertwined with or adjacent to those used by public safety radios. Nextel agrees the interference is serious but says it occurs in only a handful of the bund reds of cities where it operates. "This isn't a widespread national problem," said Nextel Vice President Lawrence Krevor, who acknowledges that the towers the company uses cause interference in 12 states. Nextel estimates a nationwide fix could cost millions of dollars. Public safety officials say it could be billions. But neither they, Nextel nor the FCC can agree on whom should pay. Krevor said Nextel is committed to stopping the interference on a case-by-case basis. But those fixes often only reduce interference, not stop it. The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the airwaves, admits if, unwittingly set the stage for this problem three decades ago when it doled out the frequencieS; that now conflict. But Kathleen Ham, deputy chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, said the commission is not responsible for fixing it because no one is breaking the law. Police and fire chiefs could reduce interference with new equipment, but officials say they can't afford to replace outdated radios. This weekend -.- more than two years after a Washington County radio technician first alerted the FCC that Nextel towers were garbling firefighters' Communications near Beaverton -- state, federal and company officials are meeting in Salt Lake City to try to determine the extent of the problem nationwide and lay out a program to fix it. The wireless industry projects that its customer base will grow by more than 40 percent over the next two years, to 168 million. As a result, a wide range of industry experts say cell phone tower interference will get worse. Frequencies allocated All radio transmissions -- from television signals to satellite communications to AM/FM radio -- are sent through the air in waves of varying lengths. All these waves are transmitted through a spectrum that ranges from about 9 kilohertz for submarine communications to 300 gigahertz for scientific satellites. The FCC regulates all transmissions in the United States, allocating users from one end of the spectrum to the other. In the 1970s, long before cellular phones became popular, police officers fought for extra space in the spectrum, particularly in urban areas where the airwaves were used heavily. Their allocations stuck them in the lower frequencies with little or no space to add radios for new officers. From 1974 to 1986, the FCC made available a section of the 800 megahertz band for police and fire departments and taxi and tow truck companies, among others. The best use of the airwaves, the FCC decided, was to intertwine the users in 250 channels. The result was like 250 lanes on a highway, with police officers driving on lanes in between taxis and tow trucks. A separate allocation -- a block of 800 MHz channels that are not intertwined -- actually placed police between what would become two cellular companies. The areas in which cellular carriers abut public safety transmissions would become hot spots for complex midair conflicts. Nextel's birth In 1987, a former FCC lawyer named Morgan O'Brien launched Nextel's precursor company, a mobile radio firm, with a dream of turning it into a nationwide wireless phone provider. Starting out as a'two-way radio company, O'Brien bought thousands of 800 MHz radio frequencies from small taxi and tow truck companies. The neighbors coexisted peaceably for years. Then, in 1991, the FCC made what would turn out to be a crucial decision. The federal agency allowed O'Brien's company to use the frequencies for a new purpose: to build a digital network for wireless phones. The decision gave O'Brien's company an advantage because the radio licenses he bought were far cheaper than the ones that had been allocated to the cell phone companies that were his competitors. These 800 MHz radio frequencies, however, were the very ones that abutted police officers and fireflghters in the radio spectrum. The FCC, not realizing its decision would later affect police officers, hailed the company for using the radio spectrum more efficientiy. The company O'Brien founded later became Nextel and has flourished into the nation's fifth-largest wireless provider with 7.7 million U.S. subscribers. The discovery In the spring of 1998, firefighters at one of Washington County's busiest fire stations noticed a mysterious phenomenon. The alarm system at Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue's station near the Washington Square mall stopped working properly, sometimes delaying firefighters' response to some emergency calls in the district that covers 10 cities. Crucial radio information was sometimes garbled. Fireflghters at the station comp a ned to their 9-1-1 managers. Spurred by the complaints, Joe Kuran, Washington County's lead radio technician, launched an investigation. Kuran knew that radios are not perfect. Police radios, like AM/FM radios, sometimes experience poor transmission inside buildings or tunnels. Sometimes police radios don't work because of equipment failure, weather or nearby hills. When Kuran and his staff checked the fire district's radio equ~'pment, everything seemed to function properly. But when technicians tested the radio signals, they found something .mysterious. Some areas had normal signals, and other spots just a few feet away had no signal at all. Adding to the mystery was the discovery that radio.transmissions were clearer inside the station with the garage door closed and when the station's antenna was moved inside. Kuran and the staff looked harder. About a quarter-mile away, they found the problem planted on top of a red-brick building: a Nextel antenna. When Nextel shut off its site, the interference vanished. Nextel was transmitting at frequencies similar to those used by the fire station. Becausethe cell phone tower was so close to the station, its signals overpowered fire dispatch transmissions http://www.~reg~n~ive.c~m/printer/printer.ss~./xm~/st~ry~ssf/htm~-st.../99684544623243132.xm 1/8/02 OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 4 of 8 coming from a county communications tower more than four miles away atop Council Crest. The discovery made Washington County one of the country's first agencies to prove cell tower interference. Growing mystery An unassuming 54-year-old with wire-rimmed glasses, Kuran doesn't have a fancy college engineering degree. He tinkered with ham radios while in high school in Wisconsin and worked in U.S. Air Force communications. He spent part of his 30-year career as a MotOrola radio technician. In November 1998, armed with his discovery, Kuran started his crusade against cell phone tower interference. He wrote what would be the first in a series of letters to FCC officials, notifying them of the problem that he said could potentially lead to the loss of life and prgperty. Kuran also wrote an article that appeared in the March 1999 issue of the trade journal Mobile Radio Technology, which is read by industry executives and communication engineers. His article prompted public safety officers around the country to scrutinize their own systems and wonder if cell towers were creating problems. ";Joe Kuran was the first to really nail it down," said Kevin Kearns, telecommunications manager for King County, which includes Seattle. "He was the one who put some technical meat behind it." But much like in Washington County, other radio technicians had trouble confirming the sources of interference. Cell phone operators move frequencies from tower to tower based on demand. Companies may use a handful of frequencies at one tower overnight but move them to another tower for rush-hour demand. Some police radios constantly change channels, automatically seeking an open frequency each time officers push the talk button. Standing near a cell tower during a commuter rush, an officer's radio may be blocked and an hour later, just fine. As other agencies homed in on the problem, Kuran waited to hear from the FCC. On January 19, 2000 --13 months after Kuran wrote his letter -- the FCC wrote back. D'wana R. Terry, the FCC's chief of public safety and private wireless division, wrote a four- paragraph letter that said neither Nextel nor Washington County violated federal guidelines. She said the parties should resolve the issue on their own. Call for help Six months later, interference was still cropping up in Washington County -- this time near the Tigard police station and across the street from a fire station. This incident alerted county officials that the problem was growing. When police officers enter an unknown situation, they say, their radios are one of the most important tools they can carry because they enable officers to call for help for themselves and for others. In Tigard, the radio particularly is important because officers drive the streets alone. "The radio -- it is your lifeline," said Tigard Officer Jeff Lain. "It is the only way you can get help and to let people know what is going on around you. When you are on your own it is scary." Just before 6 a.m. June 9, 2000, Lain spotted a 1984 gray Buick sedan that he said ran a stop sign. Although it looked like it would be another routine traffic stop, Lain said he also knew it could turn deadly. His car's red and blue lights flashed in the early ~orning light. The driver and Lain stopped at a storage facility on Southwest Burnham Street, near the police station. Across the street, Anthony Passadore, also of the Tigard police, sat in his patrol car writing reports. A Nextel cell tower stood nearby. Lain radioed his location to the dispatch center but later said that dispatcher couldn't hear him. He said he later learned that the only words that made it through were "traffic" and "Burnham." Passadore said he saw Lain and heard static on his radio. Passadore said he moved his Patrol car to get a better view of Lain but did not want to intrude. When Lain approached the car, he noticed the driver's jacket hid a handgun, according to a police repOrt. Lain said he called for back-up but again almost all of the transmission was blocked. Passadore said he again only heard static and did not hear Lain's request for help. A third officer, R.J. Newman, said he heard only the word "gun." With no backup, Lain asked the man to get out of the car. Lain removed a loaded 9 mm handgun. By then, Newman arrived. "At no time did (the driver) inform me that he was armed," Lain wrote in his report. "It was lucky for me," Lain said. "It was lucky everything turned out all right." Nextel admits its towers caused the interference. "It scares the hell out of us," said Sandra Baer, a Nextel consultant in Reston, Va. "None of us wants that to happen. Police officers should be able to use their communications interference free." Widespread problem During its investigation, The Oregonian contacted more than 100 public safety officials in 50 states by phone or e-mail. In 28 states, this survey found at least one case in which officials confirmed or suspected cell phone towers had interfered with city, county or state radio systems. Among them: Every day for at least six months last year, Tigard police officers ending their shift could not sign off with the dispatch center while parked at the Police Department. In Portland, one of every three radio or computer transmissions have been interfered with in the past 21/2 years. The city has spent more than $50,000 researching interference and worked closely with Nextel engineers to alleviate it. But Nancy Jesuale, Portland's director of communications and networking, said their efforts have provided only isolated improvements. "We cannot have any tolerance for interference to our communications from the galloping cellular market. This is unacceptable," said Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker, who relayed his concerns during meetings with two FCC commissioners in Washington, D.C. last month. In Denver, police officers reported 60 complaints of interference since September. http ://www.~reg~n~ive.c~m/printer/printer.ssf?/xm~/st~ry.ssf/htrn~-st.../99684544623243132.xm 1/8/02 OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 6 of 8 "We have not encountered that life-threatening situation, but that is our concern -- you're living on borrowed time," said Steven Cooper, division chief for the Denver Police Department. In Scottsdale, Ariz., durin~g a seven-month period last year police officers could not use their radios when they charged into bars to break up brawls in a one-square mile entertainment district. In Seattle, since 1999, radios have been swamped with static or don't work at all hundreds of times each day. In Phoenix, Ariz., the reach of the Police Department's radio signals to its in-car computers was reduced by more than 13 percent, preventing officers from checking motorists for outstanding warrants. In 21 of the 28 states, officials say they have identified Nextel as the source of the interference. In at least five other States, officials think Nextel is the cause but haven't been able to prove it. In two states, other cellular companies are thought to be the problem. In a handful of states where Nextel signals are causing interference, other wireless companies also have contributed to the problem. Public safety officials say Nextel has the most definitive list of cities experiencing interference. The company refused to disclose its list to The Oregonian. Nextel's Krevor acknowledged his company is causing interference in 12 of the 27 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Washington. The company is working to reduce interference caused by its cell towers as they beco me known, he said. In the other states Krevor said Nextel was not the cause of interference or that he had not been notified of any problems. Some of the problems, public safety officials Say, were handled by local Nextel staff. Officials in San Diego and Houston said they are experiencing only minor interference from Nextel towers. But public safety officials say these aren't all the cases. "Undoubtedly, there are people experiencing the problem that we don't know about yet," said Glen Nash, president-elect of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, a lobbying group based in Daytona Beach, Fla. Who's to blame? Nextel and the FCC deny they are responsible for fixing the problem. Nextel officials say the company is a victim of circumstance. After all, they say, the FCC approved the company's plan to build a digital network on frequencies next to police and fire departments. "With all due respect, Nextel didn't cause the problem," said Robert S. Foosaner, a Nextel senior vice president and former chief of the FCC Private Radio Bureau in the 1980s. Nextel engineers searched for potential interference before the company launched its network in 1996 but' didn't find any, Krevor said. "Certainly we didn't expect it to occur," he said. "...This is not resulting from anything we're doing outside the rules and regulations." King County's Kearns said he has worked with the company to eliminate part of the interference and doesn't "want to characterize Nextel as the great evil. We are in the same boat. We both kind of got stuck by the FCC." But, like Nextel, FCC officials say they couldn't have predicted the interference and they are doing all they can to fix it. eally th~nk its very unproductive to engage in fingerpo~ntlng, the FCC's Ham ,s, aid .... We're all very sensitive and d.o not want to cause ~ituations where there is interference to police and fire departments. A report cdmmissioned by t. he FCC last year said interference was an unfortunate byproduct of Nextel's popularity and police departments' demand for frequencies. "That's what the industry wanted," Foosaner said of the 250 intertwined frequencies.where Nextel and public safety departments operate. "There was nothing controversial about it. It was a no- brainer as far as the government was concerned. Unfortunately, 25 years later with the advance of technology, it has turned out to be a poor decision." Dale N. Hatfield, chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology from 1998 to 2000, said the commission might have predicted the interference if its engineering staff wasn't so overworked. Even if the commission couldn't have predicted the problem, some public safety officials want it fixed by the FCC, which wields broad enforcement powers. But the FCC said it sees no heed to mandate any changes because Nextel and public safety officials already are. working together to resolve the issue. Foosaner said the FCC doesn't have the people or money to spend on a solution. The FCC has one-tenth the number of employees of Nextel, and a $248 million annual budget compared with Nextel's $5.7 billion in annual revenues. The FCC's Ham did point her finger at police departments' outdated analog radios, which reel in Nextel's signals and the interference, which newer technology could deflect. Public safety officials admit they could halt part of the interference with new radios, but police and fire chiefs are reluctant to ask taxpayers to hand over millions of dollars to pay for them. Washington County's Kuran says the agency seven years ago spent $6.7 million on a state-of-the- art Motorola radio system with a 10-year life span. This year, the agency is planning a $9 million system update that doesn't include new handheld radios. Portland spent $15 million' on a system with a 15-year life span in 1994. The city also is in the midst of a $250,000 upgrade to beam stronger signals to the 80 agencies covered by the system. Technicians designed the system arou nd its known weaknesses: thick walls and deep canyons. But the Nextel interference introduced flaws the radios weren't designed to work around, Kuran said. Repeat mistake? Some public safety and cellular industry experts fear that the FCC is setting the stage for another midair clash -- this time in the 700 MHz band. http://www.~reg~n~ive.c~m/printer/printer.ssf?/xm~/st~ry.ssf/htm~-st.../99684544623243132.xm 1/8/02 OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 8 of 8 The commission plans to allocate a section of the band for police officers and wireless corn panies such as Nextel. The FCC says it has taken measures to prevent cellular frequencies from bleeding into public safety channels. But public safety officials and those in the cellular industry, including Nextel and equipment manufacturer Motorola, ,say the measures are not enough. Motorola officials say the FCC rules still allow cellUlar companies to-use powerful transmissions that would clash with public safety frequencies, creating a virtual repeat of the problems on the 800 MHz band. "The effect on public safety system would be Cataclysmic... "Steve Sharkey, the company's director of telecommunications regulation, wrote to the FCC in December. The 700 MHz auction was most recently scheduled for September but was delayed for the fifth time last month while the FCC considers the concerns. The auction has not been rescheduled. News researchers Lynne Palombo and Margie Gultry of the Oregonian contributed to this story. You can reach Emily Tsao at 503-294-5968 or by e-mail at emilytsao@news.oregonian.com. You can reach Ryan Frank at 503-294-5955 or by e,mail at ryanfrank@ news.oregonian.com. Copyright 2002 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved. Homo -> ~oW8 -> Contont lhursda~ ~3 Docambor, 2001 "' kottors to tho fiditor NEWS SEARCH Advanced search News Top Stodes - Police/Courts News Briefs Editorial Letters to the Editor Obituades Education Government Religion Weather Sports Horse & Field 3ports Business Entertainment Rappahannock Community News Real Estate ~ 2001 Fauquier Guide Fun! Special Sections ~ Classifieds ~ Business Directory · ~ Links ~ Contact Us How to Advertise Society Page ~hoto Galleries The myth of afour-site, 800-MHz radio system By George Tolis, Warrenton December 12, 2001 "Cost Containment Options" is the title of a chart that Fauquier County's 800-MHz consultant, CTA Corporation, included in their 800-MHz Radio Study Report, One of the listed options reads, "Reduce Coverage (drives number of towers)". Therein lies the key to County 800-MHz radio proponents' strategy for under specifying and thus understating the true cost of an 800-MHz public safety radio system. This strategy will soon be unveiled by county officials in the contract presently being negotiated in which Motorola. The contract commits to supplying an 800-MHz radio system covering 95% of the county's 660 square miles with 95% reliability with only four towers! This feat has not been accomplished elsewhere in the nation, so we must assume that either Motorola has found a way to overcome the laws of physics, or the four site system is just a "starter-set." Fairfax County, with only 60% of Fauquier's area started with 11 sites and will soon expand to 14 to fill "dead zones." Prince William County, one-half Fauquier's size, is using eight tower-transmitter sites. Full coverage in Fauquier will ultimately require 12-18 tower-transmitter sites, depending on location, height, and FCC approved power levels. None of these little details has been worked out yet, so how can Motorola guarantee 95 by 95 percent coverage? Answer: It can't. Whatto expect Here is the scenario. About two years after the contract is awarded, the need to add additional tower-sites at considerable additional cost will be 'discovered." What starts out as a four-site, $6 million system escalates to a 12-olus site. $18 million system. http://www.z.../news.cfm?newsid=2769224&BRD=1904&PAG=461 &dept id=l 51927&rfi= 12/13/01 Arcom Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat Page .2 of 3 Add "spares and repairs" and the cost is over $20 million. This is the incremental approach to fielding the system, designed to conceal the true cost from the taxpayers until there is so much "sunk cost" that there is no turning to better alternatives. The forgoing scenario is just the bad news. The really bad news is that Nextel Corp. has just proposed that the FCC "re-plan" the 800-MHz spectrum to remediate interference in the public safety portion of the band, caused primarily by Nextel transmitters. Arcom Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat Page 3 of 3 who has been misled by Motorola salesmen and others into believing the 800 MHz system is the best. It is not the best juSt the most expensive. 150-MHz alternative The supervisors must get their heads out of the sand and act to rectify their misguided procurement decision. The 150-MHz effort must be re-energized by specifying a system and proceeding to solicit bids. A 150-MHz system can be up and running within a year or so after award, at a cost of. under $4 million! The Virginia State Police, after acom prehensive study of alternatives, chose to procure 150-MHz radios. A Fauquier resident has spent $300,000 to provide Fauquier with the necessary 150-MHz licenses. If Supervisors Graham, McCamy and Weeks continue on the present course, given the latest developments, they will not only waste millions that can be devoted to our public school system, they will be giving our public safety personnel an outdated an unsafe system. The word malfeasance comes to mind here. George Tolls, of Warrenton, works for the Institute for Defense Analyses in Northern Virginia. ©Al-corn Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat 2001 Reader Opinions Be the first person to voice your opinion on this story! Back to top t.~.~_~ ~~E~ma~'~ ~b~a f~,d s~r~ Copyright © 1995 - 2001 PowerAdz.com LLC. All Rights Reserved. http'://www.z.../news.cfm?newsid=2769224&BRD=1904&PAG=461&dept_id=151927&rfi= 12/13/01 t"dt..3Ulll 1- tlUll)lllllg IilU. - rallttU, l~I- .t lmes-L~emocrat rage ~r~~ ~~~._~. i .. ¢~.... ,~i~~~1~ Thursday 13 December, 2001 :'"Top Stories Home -> News -> Content NEWS SEARCH Advanced search . ?News Top Stodes Police/Courts News Bdefs Editorial Letters to the Editor Obituaries Education Govemment Religion Weather ~ Sports J~ Horse & Field Sports ~ Business ~ Entertainment ~ Rappahannock Community News Real Estate ) 2001 Fauquier Suide I~ Fun! ~ Special Sections ~ Classifieds I~ Business Directory ~ Links } Contact Us [~ How to Advertise ~ Society Page Photo Galleries -'"SECTION LINKS Town By Mika Elizabeth Foley December 12, 2001 The Warrenton Town Council held a work session last Thursday to discuss the status of the 800-MHz public safety radio system and the revocation of the Auburn Dam permit. But after hearing pros and cons of the 150-MHz vs. the 800-MHz radio systems from county staff members, consultants and residents, the council never broached the second issue. Pumhasing new radios is part of the town's budget. Council members must decide whether to buy more radios in the 150-MHz range now in use by the town or to go along with the county and buy the much-debated 800-MHz radios. The mayor asked Tony Hooper, deputy county administrator, to explain where the county currently stood on the 800-MHz system, "and specifically what, if anything does the county expect the town to be involved in or participate in." After first explaining how and why the town could participate with the county, Hooper said, "From our point of view, if you determine your needs can be better met at a different frequency or with a different system, that's fine with us, too." Hooper has spent the last couple of months working with attorneys and engineers towards a contract for the county. He believes a contract for the 800-MHz system will be in place sometime in January or February. Hooper admitted the possibility that the 800-MHz system contract will not be executed if final terms and conditions can't be worked out. "But at this point our goal is to try and develop an acceptable The county's radio system The Fauq uier County Board of Supervisors is expected to make a final decision on its emergency radio system at the Jan. 22 meeting. The negotiating team representing the county is in the final stages of finalizing a contract with a vendor who will provide an 800 MHz system. Before signing the contract, the supervisors will review the details and the performance standards. Officials antici pate that the contract will be available to the Ct~k t~ http://www'z"'/news'cfm?newsid=2769179&BRD=1904&PAG=461&dept_id=127458&rfi= 12/13/01 Arcom Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat Page 2 of 5 rloroscopes · Crossword Puzzle · Washington Redskins · Movie Showtimes · 'IV Listings L;UI Ill ~,l, ~IUU~It:~I "If the town wishes to participate in that system, that would be good. There are provisions in the contract, I think, for additional mobile and portable units to be purchased at the same COntract price," he added. Regarding the town's responsibility, Hooper explained, "1 think the county probably would be looking for the town just to be responsible for any incremental cost associated with your participation." The town would be responsible for.buying the radio units themselves, the engineering related to their implementation, and any.training needed. A rough estimate of the capital cost for the town would be approximately $250,000 or less, according to Hooper. Annual cost for maintenance should be less than $200,000. supervisors Tor )reliminary review soon, perhaps as early as the Dec. 17 supervisor's meeting. Board of Supervisors Chairman Ray Graham said formal acceptance of the 800-MHz system is likely. "If we like what we hear (about the contract), there are currently three votes for the 800- MHz system," he said. As part of the joint communications center agreement, the town pays costs that are not covered by the state compensation board and phone tax revenue. Hooper told council members'that county staff would like to know by May or June at the latest whether or not the town wants to participate in the 800- MHz system. Advantages "There may be some advantages of the town and county, being on the same system'. One of those would be the overall cost," said Hooper. The county would pay for the infrastructure of towers, and the installation of transmitters and various equipment, he explained, but the town could use them. Ken Ballad from CTA Communication.s, a consulting engineer that has been working with the county on the radio system, recommended that Town Council members consider the technical issues of system capacity, building penetration and inter operability. In the odginal design of the system, concerning the number channels and the-coverage area, the county considered the town of Warrenton "as potentially a participant in the system," said Ballad, who added that Councilman Sam Tarrwas part of the committee that looked at the design. Members of the Warrenton Police Department and the SherifFs Office will be able to communicate with each other with either the current town system or the 800-MHz system, according to Ballard. But he said 'that interoperability would be easier on the 800 trunking system, because the town would then be using the same repeaters. hffn.//uruaw ~ /new,q_cfm?new,qid=2769179&~=127458&rfi= 12/13/01 Channel congestion is eliminated by the trunk system..Certain calls and users could be prioritized with tlie trUnking system, and the highest priority classification can be used as an emergency call, which im mediately alerts the dispatch center. The proposed contract for [he county analog or digital system includes the capability for encryption for the Sheriff's Office, which the town could get as well, according to Ballard. "The single system would also eliminate the separate maintenance to be done at towers and transmitter sites," concluded Ballard. Residents speak out George Tolls spoke in favor of eliminating the county's proposal of the 800- MHz system altogether. A Fauquier resident, Tolis has 30 years experience in the defense research development and acquisition field. Twenty of those years have been spent with defense contractors as well as the department of the secretary of defense as a system engineer and program manager. Tolls recommended the town "stand fast" and take the wait-and-see approach before spending money on 800-MHz radios. Then Tolis introduced his colleague Bill Moneysmith, a professional radio engineer who has 32 years experience as a system designer. The two men cited various reasons why neither the town nor the county should invest in the 800-MHz system. "The 800-MHz safety band, nationwide, is in disarray," said Tolis. He said that injuries and two deaths have been directly attributed to failures in the 800-MHz systems. ,A saying to live by perhaps reliability trumps interoperability. If you can't talk to anybody, it doeSn't matter if you are using the same radio as the next U " g y, said Tolls. Substantial interference caused from the cellular communications and others that the FCC has allowed into the 800-MHz public safety band is increasing, according to Tolis. One critical requirement is that any new radio system provide 95 percent coverage of the county, 95 percent of the time. "The 800-MHz system that is being considered by the county, with four to six sites, would not provide 95/95 coverage. You would have dead zones, and no reliable handheld communications," said Tolis. The meeting was cut short because councilmen had an annual banquet to attend. Reaction http://www.z:../news.cfm?newsid=2769179&BRD= 1904&PAG=461 &dept_id= 127458&rfi= 12/13/01 Arcom Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat Page 4 of 5 : An informal poll of the Council members since the meeting indicates that no one is strongly inclined toward the 800-MHz system. Frank Foley stated, "If the town is not in real .danger or in jeopardy with the system we have now, I think we should stay the same, at least until we know more." Steve Athey agreed, adding, "As far as the town goes, I am for waiting until the 800 system is implemented in the county and to see how it does before we jump on board." Athey and Dave Norden are both against the county going with the costly 800-MHz system. Norden said that, as a county taxpayer, he has done a good deal of research into the systems. He believes that the 150-MHz band would be better suited to Fauquier's hilly terrain. The state police have recently decided their upgrades will be done in the 150-MHz band for that reason, he explained. "1 don't know why we don't build the 150-MHz system and put the balance of the money we would have spent oh the 800-MHz system into a new school, or even a couple of them," said the frustrated Norden. "As a councilman, I could not support the town joining in the 800 system at this time. We have a very good 150 system that is relatively new and with the interference problems the 800 system is having with Nextel and future costs involved with rectifying them, I see no reason to get involved," said Norden. Athey said, "As a county taxpayer, given the budget problems, I am for a system that would be effective and cost-efficient. That would mean I am against the 800 system." Tarr, who was on the county's committee for the public safety arena from about 1989 through 1996, said, "1 will not comment how I feel the county should proceed, only that I hope they go with the best system." Tarr also commented on the hours of research into what system is the most favorable for Fauquier County. "When the county procures a new system, either the 800-MHz or the 150- MHz system, and the existing town system requires replacement, I feel favorably in participating in the joint system concept and increase the safety benefits that would be provided to our public safety personnel," explained Tarr. "lnteroperability, reliability and security are most important when personal life is involved, whether it involves the law enforcement, emergency service personnel or the' citizens," said Tarr. Phil Meyer, Emergency Services coordinator, agreed with Tarr and is certain that an 800-MHz system would be better for the fire departments throughout the county. "We depend on communicating with Loudoun; Prince William or Culpeper I".n~nht nn n dnil~/ hn~i~ [:¢nnr-inll~/in n rli~nCfnr ~ih infinn nr mninr firn" ~n|d htm://www.z...lnew__s~_c_fm~ e ' =2 6 = 0 G= 6 deot 'd=127458&rfi= 12/13/01 Arcom ~'UDliSnlng Inc. - Pauqmer 'l'nues-Democrat Page 5 of 5 Meyer. All of those counties are or soon will be using the 800-MHz system. Mika Foley can be reached at mfol ey@timespapers.com. ©Arcom Publishing Inc. - Fauquier Times-Democrat 2001 Reader Opinions Be the first person to voice your opinion on this story! Back to top (~-~ Copyright © 1995 - 2001 PowerAdz.com LLC. All Rights Reserved. http://www.z..~/news.cfm?newsid=2769179&BRD=1904&PAG=461 &dept_id=127458&rtl= 12/13/01 i-'age City Claims Interference From Nextel Radio System ~e city of Phoenix (Ariz.) spent millions of dollars to install a public safety mobile data terminal (MDT) system that provides coverage over an 11,000 square mile area, but interference from a L~mmercial wireless system has rendered it almost uSeless. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the city complained that transmitters sites erected by Nextel Communications Inc. for their wireless telephone service have raised the radio frequency level in many areas of the city, effectively blocking reception by MDTs. "This situation creates a pronounced officer safety problem, with an unreliable MDT coverage for emergency alerting to the dispatcher and adjacent units," the letter said. The Phoenix police department first installed MDTs during 1993 to 1994 using NPSPAC channels 821-866 narrow band pairs. According to the city, signal coverage was measured at installation using 4,500 test points throughout the 475 square mile city limits and exceeded 98 percent with only seven of the base stations installed. Then in 1998 the infrastructure was expanded to 15 sites to cover 11,000 square miles, and the Phoenix f'n'e department then jOined the system to provide data service to 14 other agencies served by their corem center. "Upon completion of the expansion the Fire Department experienced unpredictable coverage and contracted with Motorola to evaluate system performance, suspecting parametric differences from police units," the city's letter stated. In August of 1999 the police department was able to identify reception problems in a specific location of the. city that previously had good coverage. "The observer noted the recent construction of a tower and the subsequent inability to send or receive MDT traffic for one-half mile in any direction from that location," the city's letter said. "The technicians were able to repeat the interference observation at any time of the day and contacted the tower owner, Nextel. Additional measurements were made near several other Nextel sites with the same result." Desensitized The Nextel transmitters operate on several frequencies between 851 and 865 MHz, and "overwhelmed the low power three watt MDT transceiver with total receiver desensitization from transmitter sideband noise, so that it was unable to loclc into any other channel in the system," the city said. Maximum spacing between the radio carriers was 1.6 MHz, according to the letter. "Nextel Regulatory Affairs Manager, Bob McNamara, told us that Motorola had assured them that a 1.5 MHz or greater spacing would not be destructive. The city then performed field tests: "With all of (the Nextel) transmitters in the off state, the MDT performed normally, scanning to its strongest BER and ~:egistering on the system. With up to three of http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2000/2_2000 11 tem.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 2 of 2. the Nextel transmitters turned on the noise floor rose significantly on the speCtrum analyzer, but the MDT still operated. When transmitter number four was added, the MDT unit became paralyzed." The city technicians then tested reception at other Nextel sites and found, "Similar desensitization results are demonstrable near any Nextel site, with those using higher antennae elevations creat!ng an even larger ring of destructive interference." At a later forum on public safety communications at the FCC headquarters, Dave Buchanan San Bemadino County (Calif.) said the city of Ontario also has similar problems within one-quarter mile of three Nextel sites, in a high-crime area. "So it's been a real headache for the police units them," he said. Buchanan said Nextel has tried two fixes--they have tweaked their transmit combiners, "which lowers the noise floor and the other is looking at receivers that have a better front end, better receive specs." Appeared: 2/2000 on page 11 copyright 2000, Allen Media 800 MHz inteference task force issues report f ' S~af~'~~~'~ tiie ~-0U'~fI~'~and, b~t~ ~rmation. gathered by ~ task force ~. in~ ~ X~so~ia~i~n. '~ ~u~c- ~a~ety ;5omm~-~catlons Officials (APCO) may help commercial providers design systems that won't mterfere as often. The task force includes representatives of Nextel, one commercial carder identified as a source of interference, and Motorola, who makes the equipment that Nextel uses, and is discussing how interference sources could be traced easier and more quickly, so solutions can be sooner. For over a year, several public safety agencies using 800 MHz frequencies have reported radio problems in very specific areas of their jurisdiction. In some cases there was a relatively small, very defined dead spot where radios--voice or data--would not work. In other cases there was noise or other interference on the channel. As a result, APCO posted a questionnaire on its Web site to solicit incidents of interference and alertedthe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the problems. Last April the association attended an FCC-hosted meeting in Washington (DC) on the issue, along with Nextel and Motorola. According to an APCO report on the task force, "This meeting was intended to bring the representatives of the affected.parties together in an attempt to identify the scope of the problem." Each participant provided an overview of the problem from their own perspective, the report said. As a result of the meeting, the FCC asked the attendees to create a'task force to investigate the interference issue. "The commission specifically asked the task force to operate independently of the FCC," APCO said, "but did assign an FCC liaison to monitor the progress." The mission of the task force was to "fully identify the scope of the problem, the actual parties and mechanisms behind the interference, and ultimately provide a workable solution to dealing with the interference." Several Sources More than one specific technical mechanism was identified as the cause behind the interference from preliminary data provided during the meeting, the APCO report said. "However, virtually all modes of interference could be tracked to the different design modes of commercial systems and public safety systems." The report explained that public safety systems are designed to maximize coverage from a centrally located base station using the maximum technical capabilities of equipment. "This is defined as 'noise limited' design." In this type of system, mobile radios operate close to their practical design threshold, or close to their maximum receive sensitivity in the extremes of their coverage area. http://www.dispatchmonthiy.com/stories/stories_2000/8_2000 30 ort.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 2 of 3 On the other hand, "commercial systems are designed to hand-off mobiles well before they approach a threshold signal level," the report said. "And system designers purposefully place base station transmitters in relative close proximity of strong signal overlap to ensure continUous coverage for a moving mobile." This type of system is called "interference limited," inasmuch as the mobile travels until it encounters a stronger signal as the mobile enters a stronger signal of an adjoining site. "This also allows for the installation of many small transmitter sites or cells," the report said. "Economically, the commercial provider can increase the frequency reuse providing greatly increased capacity for areas of'high access demand by the public." Special Spot A typical public safety base is located strategically to maximize its range, "but may not be near an area that is critical for mobile contact." Usually such areas receive a signal level well within normally acceptable design criteria," APCO explained. "If a commercial provider places a station in these areas of low, but usable signal, very often the addition of the commercial transmitter to the overall radio frequency environment is just enough to mask the intended public safety signal." The report explained that the industry trend for commercial radio providers is to "increase capacity and coverage by placing more and more transmitters in areas that coincide with high concentrations of general population." But, "Quite often these are the very same locations that are becoming critical for public safety to provide reliable coverage. The conflict is evident and the trend will not alter in the foreseeable future." The APCO report was clear---"The problem is not limited to Nextel operations. Many other commercial mobile radio operations can also interfere in this same general manner," including other cell phone carders and dispatch-type operations." It just happens that Nextel's choice of technology is a digital modulation technique "that can be more harmful than older analog technologies, but even older technologies are not immune from causing these problems." APCO has created an on-line reporting form on its Web site. "Response has been good, but we are sure many more affected agencies have not reported," APCO said. They explained that many agencies may be experiencing intermittent interference from commercial sources and may be unaware of the cause. APCO will compile the interference information internally to use in an information campaign that will assist agencies experiencing problems in determining how to identify this type of interference. Motorola has also created a spreadsheet that can be used to quantify the interference in greater detail, htto://~, ach - :h -_-._c m/ .rie /st ties 2: :-,i/: ' _q0__ . ' ~ ..... 1/7/_0.2_ DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 3. of 3 "which will help pinpoint the exact cause and potential SOlutions." APCO has also posted this spreadsheet on its Web site. '~'~ld~ntifying the scope and severity of the problem is only the first step in our efforts," APCO wamed "Tiffs does not prevent nor assuage the problem." They stated, "At some point in this process, the parties involved in the interference will be brought together, and both will be required to report progress on solutions." The association was pessimistic in its prognosis. "Frankly, there is little chance of a Permanent long- term solution to this type of interference," the report said. "Even when a 'fix' is applied, it may only mean the problem moved to some other site (moving a specific commercial frequency to another site)." Also, they noted that the commercial mobile radio industry is growing and continually adding new locations to their networks, and changing frequency mixes at other sites that creates "a dynamic problem." APCO concluded, "The information and contacts made through a monitoring process may assist the commerci~/1 providers in designing systems that will not interfere as often. It will most certainly assist public safety agencies to quickly identify the problem and obtain faster resolutions. If we cannot entirely eliminate the problem, at least we should be able to help provide a quicker resolution when interference is encountered." Appeared: 8/2000 on page 30 copyright 2000, Allen Media http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories 2000/8 2000 30 ort.html 1/7/02 Reprinted from NewsMax.com Cell Towers Causing 'Dead Spots' in Police/'Fire Radio Coverage NewsMax. com Wires Monday, March 12, 2001 WASHINGTON -"One Adam 12." "Car 54, where are you?" The police radios that popularized those refrains on TV cop shows worked as reliably as quartz watches. In the real world, such dependability can be a matter of life and death. "That's your lifeline; that's just a given," says Kansas City, Mo., detective Robert Blehm, who took that popular image to heart. But as Blehrn and his partner, Derek McCollum, ran after a drug dealer at 4 in the morning on Sept. 18, 1996, they gOt dead air when they tried to call for backup on their new handheld radios. As they cornered the suspect, he shot them both. Blehm - lying in the street, blood gushing from his shattered right leg - tried calling again. Again nothing. Finally, McCollum, shot in the chest but still able to move, stumbled up the street until he found a clear signal and summoned help. The shooting victims were also victims of progress. The once-dependable police radio is literally being drowned out by a torrent of information-age services, Such as wireless phones and instant messaging, that have made mobile communications available to millions of Americans. Even as police, fire and emergency medical services upgrade to pricey new radio systems, dozens of agencies - including those in Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Denver; and Miami - face increasing interference from more-powerful commercial wireless services. "This is a very big problem, and it's going to get worse" as cellulars' customer base grows, says Ron Haraseth of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials. In Tigard, Ore., recently, police twice were unable to radio for backup while facing armed suspects because of cellphone interference. Part of the problem is the fact that Kansas City's police force and others, beset by tight budgets and poor planning, have been unable or unwilling to build sufficient infrastructure to support their new but more terrain-sensitive systems. And many agencies simply fmd their new, feature-rich radios tougher to use and more prone to breakdown. In the 1960s and 1970s, "there weren't as many users, and systems were simpler," says Chuck Jackson of Motorola, the top maker of emergency-service radios. "There was a microphone and a speaker, and you talked over it." Some officials blame the Federal Communications Commission, which supervises the airwaves, for not doing more to head off the current traffic jam. And experts say the FCC's plan to divvy up a new band of radio spectrum - ostensibly to fix the problems - may just replicate current congestion. http ://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.pl 12/12/01 Cell Towers Causing 'Dead Spots' in Police/Fire Radio Coverage Page 2 of 5 FCC critics, moreover, say that the agency, under pressure to wring as many billions of dollars as possible from auctioning airwaves to commercial carriers, gives second-class consideration to public- safety agencies that get the spectrum for free. The FCC says it balances both interests. However the blame is shared, the bottom line at street level is that the ongoing glitches have caused an untold number of dose calls and at least a few injuries, and may have contributed to the death of a police officer. "It could mean life or death to police officers, firefighters and even citizens who are not able to get prompt emergency service,,' says Harlin McEwen, a retired police chief who handles telecommunications issues for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Public-safety radios traditionally worked in the relatively uncrowded 400-megahertz frequency band and lower. Interference was rare and came from taxis and other services on nearby channels, whose conversations were brief. But as metro populations swelled, police, fire and medical agencies lacked enough channels to handle growth in their own ranks. The sprawl also cOmplicated another concern: Departments typically cannot communicate by radio with neighboring agencies whose equipment works on different frequency bands. This still is a nationwide problem during major fires and other disasters involving multiple jurisdictions. To fix both problems, a growing number of agencies across the United States in the past decade have been upgrading to new equipment that works in the 800-megahertz band, which has more capacity and allows more features. And neighboring communities often move there in tandem, so they Can communicate with each other. Fix breeds new problems But that slice of spectrum is the same space occupied by the exploding wireless industry. And it brings its own headaches: · Wireless interference. Much of the commercial interference with public-safety radios comes from cellphones. And, for historical reasons, the cellphone company causing the most problems.is Nextel Communications. Until recent years, Nextel operated a mobile radio service for taxis, trackers and others. In the 1970s, the FCC interlaced NexteYs channels with those of other mobile radio services, including public safety. It did so because it thought each organization's channels were more vulnerable to interference from its other channels than from someone else's channels. It's not clear whether this belief was correct - the FCC had few resources for testing back then. But the legacy is that in each market, dozens of police and fire channels abut Nextel channels. For years, the layout caused few problems because both Nextel and public-safety agencies used a radio system design: a handful of towers on hilltops beaming wide-area signals. Cellphones create coverage gaps htt-o://www.newsmax.com/c~i-bin/~rinter friendly. _1 _ . 12/12/01 But in the mid-1990s, Nextel morphed into a national cellular phone company, which required it to dot cities with dozens more towers. The result is that its transmissions now can overwhelm relatively weak public-safety systems on nearby channels and create coverage gaps that can reach a mile, especially near cell towers. Other wireless phone providers, such as AT&T and Cingular Wireless, also cause interference. But because their channels were granted in separate blocks, they wreak havoc only where they meet public safety's block. "In almost every region of the country we're heanng complaints, says Mike Hunter, president of engineering firm RCC Consultants. In Anne Anmdel County, Md., police officers are plagued by eight "dead spots" where Nextel and Cingular have towers. The problem came to a-head last year when an officer stopped a speeding' car and could n°t reach dispatch. As he wrote out a ticket, another officer stopped to warn him that the driver was a shooting suspect. "It was getting to where officers, who are pretty courageous, were starting to get very uncomfortable," says Anne Arundel Police Chief P. Thomas Shanahan. The county recently agreed to buy a new $15 million radio system. In Phoenix, Nextel transmitters hamper the police radio data system, which does background checks during traffic stops. "Certainly people guilty of crimes have been let go because the officer couldn't get through," says radio manager Melvin Weimeister. In Portland, Ore., Nextel's system - which has 80 towers in the area vs. the county's 14 - "is like the biker gang that moved next door, banging and raising hell," says Joel Harrington, who handles city communications there. Officials are considering a more robust $50 million radio network, he says. Most of the time, the interference means hassles rather, than disaster: Officers must travel farther to get a signal, carry cellphones, and bring backup when entering static-prone areas. And Nextel, officials say, has been a good neighbor, agreeing to switch channels, reduce transmitter power and sometimes even move towers. "We take reports of interference with public safety very seriously," says Larry Kervor, Nextel's vice president of government affairs. But the company, he says, is "fully in compliance with the FCC." The FCC, .in turn, says that years ago it simply did not anticipate Nextel's cellular service. Remedial measures are of limited value, says Tom Eckels, an engineer with consultancy Hatfield & Dawson. A long-term solution would be to move Nextel and public-safety channels into separate blocks. But it would take huge sums to reprogram equipment. Many towns couldn't, afford it. Portland and other cities are considering moving to the 700-megahertz band, to be vacated by UHF television stations as they switch to digital broadcasting. But radio equipment for that band won't be ready until mid-2002. And some experts contend that the FCC's new plan for that band will make it just as crowded. The agency first designed the 700 band .with public safety in its own block and more space between that block and other wireless carders. But the FCC revised the plan last year, and critics say it now allows http ://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.pl 12/12/01 Cell Towers Causing 'Dead Spotst in Police/Fire Radio Coverage Page 4 of 5 carders to operate powerful transmission towers in channels that are too close to public safety. "It's a significant concern," says Steve Sharkey of Motorola, which asked the FCC to reconsider. The FCC turned it down, saying interference should not be :a problem. McEwen of the police chiefs group charges, "The FCC changed the rules to get more money from auctions, but they're putting public safety at risk." Tom Sugrue, chief of the FCC's wireless bureau, replies, "That's just wrong." He notes that "radio spectrum is a limited resource that everyone wants" and that'the FCC must balance competing needs. · Need for more towers. Although radio signals in the 800-megahertz band are clearer, they typically don't dance around hills, trees and buildings as deftly as their predecessors. They also have more trouble penetrating big, new, reflective-glass buildings. The solution is to build a bigger network. But budget-conscious cities often don't realize or want to accept that upgrading to 800 megahertz requires adding many more towers than their older systems needed, RCC's Hunter says. In Kansas City, officials decided: "This is how much we want to spend, and this'll do," says Bob Lawrey, communications manager for city police. The city recently had to enhance its new 800-megahertz, $18 million system with $10 million worth of additional antennas. "I was pretty upset that they expected us to do this job and they gave us substandard equipment;" says Blehm, 29, the wounded officer, who has settled a lawsuit against his assailant, the city, the city's radio consultant (SFA) and the maker of the radios (Ericcson). Assistant City Manager Rich Noll said officials thought the original network would be sufficient. Orange County, Calif., installed an $80 million radio system last year. But the system design did not adequately account for the area's maze of malls, apartments and offices. Recently, as a SWAT team searched for a suspect in an Irvine office building, Orange County officers could not radio colleagues outside to let them know the team was coming through the door. The county is now debating more antennas. In Delaware, firefighters often resort to blaring sirens to let colleagues know that a blaze is spreading or a floor is caving in. That's because Delaware's new $52 million statewide radio system doesn't work in five communities, including tourist hotbed Rehoboth Beach, or in large buildings. Motorola has agreed to add signal boosters at no cost, and the state will spend $10 million to improve performance inside buildings. Police officer shot to death Problems tumed tragic in Atlanta. In 1997, as two officers responded to a domestic dispute, the man became aggressive. Officer Patricia Cocciolone says she tried to call for help, but her radio didn't work. The man emerged with a rifle and critically injured Cocciolone. He killed her partner, John Sowa. htt .~p_;/~//~w.newsm~~~~e i .v2_._. _ 12/12/01 Cell Towers CauSing 'Dead Spots' in Police/Fire Radio Coverage Page 5 of 5 Chip Warren, vice president of the police union, says the city has balked at spending to add antennas to its $39 million, six-year-old system. "This is pu~ing troops' lives in danger." Atlanta Police Maj. Bill Gordon says the problem is not widespread and says Cocciolone's radio worked, contrary to her testimony and media reports. Experts also note that every radio system has dead spots: buildings, low spots and other nooks where signals will not reach. Says Eckels of Hatfield & Dawson: "Nobody ever can afford to build the perfect radio system," · More complicated equipment. New 800-megahertz radios sport fancy features, such as emergency buttons to alert dispatchers to trouble and automatic scanning for an open channel. But some officers have had trouble using them. Before, they searched for open channels themselves, listening to colleagues' conversations as they scanned. Now, if the airwax/es are busy, they hear a beep and must wait for a channel. "We've had officers frustrated during a shooting because they get a tone," says Portland Assistant Police Chief Bruce Prunk. A Kansas City dispatcher, bewildered by a new 60-channel radio, responded on the wrong channel to firefighters calling for hoses, forcing them to jump out a fn'st-floor window to escape a blaze. Though time and training should ease many of these concerns, the feature-packed new radio systems are also more glitch-prone. "The systems are full of controllers and microprocessors and software;" Hunter says. "There's a lot more to go wrong." © Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. http ://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly:pl 12/12/01 <<< Back I Print Nextel's Interference Solution Causes Static November 29, 200! :l. 2,'OOam Phillips Publishing International,Inc. immunications Today via NewsEdge Corporation: Nextel Communications XTL] isn't alone in wanting to eliminate commercial wireless networks' interference with public safety radio systems and, if Nextel's idea for solving the Lroblem is to succeed, it won't be on its efforts alone. Reston, Va.-based Nextel last week submitted a white paper to the Federal Communications Commission proposing a spectrum swap that would give public safety communications systems access to a 20 MHz block of contiguous spectrum in the lower 800 MHz band. That would be more than double the 9.5 MHz of non- contiguous spectrum at 800 MHz allocated for public safety operations. Under the proposal, Nextel would give up 16 MHz of its licensed spectrum - 4 MHz in the 700 MHz band, 8 MHz in the lower non-contiguous channels of the 800 MHz band and 4 MHz of spectrum in the 900 MHz band. [ts existing, contiguous spectrum holdings of 10 MHz in the upper 800 MHz band would not be affected. However, in addition to moving Nextel into 6 MHz in the upper 800 MHz band and 10 MHz in the 2100 MHz band, the swap also would force business, industry and land transportation operations to move their private wireless operations from the 800 HHz band. "Basically they are just talking about completely reallocating the band," said Sharpe Smith, spokesman for the Industrial Telecommunications Association, which represents private wireless operators. "Any time you talk about relocating people it begs all sorts of questions. Primary among those questions would be companies' costs for moving their networks to new frequencies, how their services would be disrupted and whether the spectrum they've moved'to has the same signal propagation characteristics. Like Nextel's network, some private wireless networks use spectrum adjacent to public safety networks. And like Nextel, the association is concerned about eliminating interference with public safely radio systems, although private wireless systems aren't often the source, of interfering signals, Smith said. "We believe in the concept of eliminating the interference problem," he said. "We support that bottom line. It's just that we're going to have to study this plan to know if it's a workable solution." Nextel revealed its idea in August at the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International 67th annual conference in Salt Lake City. APCO members and other public safety radio users are likely to strongly back the idea. Any opposition to improving police and fire departments' radio operations would buck popular opinion, said Stephen Coran, a telecom attorney and a partner with the ManatL, Phelps & Phillips law firm in Washington,-D.C. "In the post- September 11 era, it is unpopular at best to criticize initiatives that would improve public safety," Coran told Communications Today. . http://www.wirelesswe.../index.asp?layout=print_page&articlelD=NEdl 128000.5cn&doc id 12/12/01 WirelessWeek.com Page 2 of 2 Support from the public safety community will be c~ucial for Nextel's idea to be implemented by the FCC because other wireless carriers also are interested in gaining access to the same spectrum Nextel is asking for, Coran added. "In gaining support from the public safety community, Nextel probably hopes to marginalize any potential criticism by other mobile wireless providers," he said. "In other words, with Nextel in concert with public safety, the slope becomes steeper for opponents to climb." >TK China Unicom [CHU]: China Mobile [CHL]: Qualcomm [QCOM]: < <Communications Today -- ! 1-27-01> > << Copyright ©2001 Phillips Publishing International,Inc. >> <<< Back I.Print htt~://www.wirelesswe.../inde~-'d -8000.5c &' c '_d ~ J-,,or~,.~n tv-unmty otuty tuumvv rage I oI 2 County Officials Question Consultant's Info County officials Question Info Supplied by Consultant When Fauquier County (Virg.) officials hired a consulting company to help them sort out the technical details of a public safety radio upgrade, they expected an unbiased, cost-effective solution. Now some county supervisors are openly critical of CTA Communications Inc., claiming the company is pushing an 800 MHz tmnked radio system over a 150 MHz system that some county residents feel would be cheaper to build and less expensive to maintain. The debate has been dragging on for several years over how to improve the county's public safety radio system. In this latest skirmish, a CTA consulting team presented the county with an estimate for consulting work on a 150 MHz system--S436,000. That compares to a previous estimate of just $250,000 for a 800 MHz system. "There's a suspicion that CTA is not interested in advising the county. There's a sense that it's interested in selling us an 800-[megahertz] system to the exclusi°n of other possibilities," supervisor Joe .Winkelmann told a reporter: "I was surprised that it cost so much," said supervisor Sharon Grove McCamy. Ailer meeting with the CTA team, the county board voted not to take nay action, but to wait for an explanation of the discrepancy in costs. Some supervisors said the estimate helps support the feeling that CTA opposes a 150 MHz solution favored by technology executive David Collins, who was also a member of one of the county's radio panels. On his own, Collins has applied for licenses from the Federal Communications Commission for the necessary 150 MHz frequencies. He said the approvals are nearly complete. Collins said an analysis by consultants he hired showed that a 150 MHz system would require fewer towers, wOuld be easier to maintain and could cost as much as $3.5 million less to construct than an 800 MHz system. Supervisor Harry Atherton said that at a recent meeting of the county's Public Safety Committee, Collins and conSultants he hired were "ambushed" by CTA consultants. He said the CTA group asked pointed questions of Collins' group its methodology in applying for the 150 MHz frequencies. "They attacked him," Atherton said. CTA "has taken an oddly adversarial approach to any exploration of a 150 system." Supervisor Raymond Graham, Who chairs the safety committee, said he wants to be able to compare the two systems side by side. "I don't feel that we're getting the answers that we really want," he said. "The board will choose the appropriate system, and CTA should be a willing participant to give us http://www.dispatchmonthly.corrdstories/stories_2000/12_2000 24 nfo.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 2 of 2 the information that we need." On.the company's behalf, Nick Diamond, vice president of engineering for CTA, said, "I believe that anything that we said concerning the differences between the systems was based on our understanding of radio systems and their characteristics" and what the county needs. Appeared: 12/2000 on page 24 copyright 2000, Allen Media t. bltla;LU.~_cli,qnatch___mon ~ ' /_f-,rlae_O_OD(~/1 - ~ '-_l .. :_ .,A iv ~ Trunked 800 MHz Features High Tech State-by-state listing oftrunked radio systems The words "800 MHz" have become the buzzword of police departments lately, but behind the words lies a jungle of high technology, federal regulation and politics that few police agencies have the experience to conquer. Tnmked 800 MHz radio.systems are slowly shaping the way all public safety agencies are organized, dispatched and operated. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is determined that tmnking will be the radio standard into the 21 st century because it uses the radio spectrum more efficiently and allows more users onto the airwaves. But for police officers working the front lines against crime, the arrival of this new radio technology had better mean just one thing--better performance. Yet a complicated process of specifying, purchasing, installing and maintaining such systems may mean that police agencies will have to use existing systems for several more years. The Advantages Besides making greater use of an increasingly limited radio spectrum, tmnked radio systems generally permit a larger number of users than a conventional system. For some police departments, this alone is justification enough to spend'the money on tmnked radio. The key to this capability lies in the ability of a tmnked radio system to use a pool of frequencies fOr any of the system's users. When an officer wants to transmit, a tnmked system simply looks at which frequency is unused and quickly assigns it to the officer for the duration of the transmission. Since field units infrequently transmit at the same time and most police transmissions are relatively short, .frequency sharing can create more on-ak time. Another advantage of tmnked systems is their flexibility. They're controlled entirely by computer, so it's easy to set up complex channel assignments, and to reconfigure the system as needed without the services of a technician. Police departments can quickly "create" an additional channel to handle a hostage situation or change channel assignments to allow public works or other city agencies to communicate on the police channel during natural disasters. In contrast, a conventional system limits each user to just their assigned frequency. If the police channel is busy, officers just haVe to wait their turn, even though the fire or public works channel is going unused at the moment. And in most systems, channel assignments can't be easily reconfigured ~..,.q~shared with other city agencies. The Questions ~'~ut with this increasingly complex technology comes some pretty stiff questions about the ability of ~0.0 MHz to adequately serve law enforcement. It's generally more expensive, more complex, takes more training to understand and operate, and must be engineered well to operate successfully. The compames that sell these systems, who have a natural stake in seeing 800 MHz succeed, have eaked the technology to answer most of these questions, but many pitfalls remain. http://www.dispatchrnonthly.com/stories/stories_old/story_ 14-old.html 1/7/02 Page 2 of 6 The first question police officers usually raise about 800 MHz trunked relates to safety. "How can we guarantee access to a radio channel?" they ask. The radio marketers have answered this concern with several schemes that designate certain agencies as "priority", which insures they always have an available channel with they press the XMIT button. Lock-out can occur when several police units attempt to transmit at the same time. For example, most tnmked systems are configured in groups of four voice channels. If five units transmit at once, one unit won't go on the air. Ina well-configured system with sufficient channels, this outcome can be minimized, but the possibility always exists. But establishing priorities can also create its own problem. If certain agencies are designated as "priority", others must be declared as "non-priority" units, capable of being bumped offthe air. That concept, and the thought of being denied access, may be procedurally or politically unacceptable to the other agencies sharing the trunked system with the police department. The only solution, purchasing additional channels, is costly. Money is always an issue with police departments--there's never enough of it. And 800 MHz radio systems are expensive to purchase and maintain. Existing systems are never compatible with new tnmked systems, so old radios and equipment can't be salvaged. The line-of-sight characteristics of 800 MHz radio demand more receiver sites, linked to the communications denter by expensive telephone lines or microwave links. Loaded with extra features, tmnked systems are inherently more expensive, simply'because they represent the "latest technology." When confronted by glitzy features, and an army of convenience and technical options, an officer suddenly designated as the department's "expert" might approve thousands of additional dollars for features that will never be used. Trunked radio raises another set of questions that don't relate to the technology at all, but to another issue critical to the success of any system: inter-agency cooperation. It's common for individual agencies to meet, draw up specifications and to implement technical systems. It's even fairy common for police and fire agencies to cooperate on operations and support systems. But it's quite another matter to bring police, fn'e, public works, electrical and other city agencies together into one room and decide on a single radio, system. The first difficult step is gathering all of the parties down at a single table. For some cities or counties, this may be the first such meeting they've held: For others who have shared microwave or other communications systems, or who have a jurisdiction-wide communications manager, such a meeting may be routine.' But either way, the difficulties of dealing with more than one agency are 'concrete. As the numbers of agency heads goes up, the likelihood of a consensus goes down--this is true for any organization. Second, the number of agendas increases as you add .agencies. And third, the differences in perceived priorities among the agencies may create friction that may submarine the radio project before it's implemented. Each public safety agency is likely to already have has its own radio system. The systems may have been installed by different companies and most likely on a different radio band. Each system manager t-'age .~ oI o may have his/her own preference for how the system shotild operate and what company should provide it. Since each agency has different duties and a different set of "customers", the tasks that the radio system performs in vastly different for each agency. The police obviously have a need for clear, reliable communications for the protection of life and property, while the public works department. requires a system capable of reaching into sewers, tunnels and near power lines. As talks progress, the participants are bound to discover.there is a perceived difference in which agency is leading the project. They will sense which agency is considered to have priority in deciding system questions and which is at the bottom of the totem pole. Naturally, these differences often spark resentments and political turmoil. Compatibility is a big issue with 800 MHz, both across model lines and with other agencies. Eventually third-parties will supply mobile radios that work with one or more company's system. But for now, the big guys--Motorola and GE--make distinctly different systems that force a police department to purchase subsequent hardware from the same company. And if you're trying to configure your tnmked system to talk with another agency, just hope they purchased their system from the same company or you're locked out. And lastly on the list ofmmked questions, engineering is a critical issue for all 800 MHz systems because of the line-of-sight characteristics of high frequency mobile radio systems. An experienced radio technician might be able to best-guess the specifications for a lower frequency system, but not for 800 MHz. The radio transmission.paths must be plotted on maps using either theoretical data or live tests. Satellite receiver sites must be located accurately by computer and the use of multipl .e base transmitters must be considered. The effects of trees, foliage, rain, and even high humidity must be considered on reception. After all this, system managers should anticipate changes in system configuration after the radio system is operating based upon actual working conditions. The National Plan Besides money, the biggest hurdle facing police departments has been obtaining the required FCC approval for 800 MHz radio plans. The paperwork is copious and demanding, even for an experienced radio technician. The approval process must pass through seVeral layers of local, regional and federal coordinators before it reaches the FCC. As background, the concept of 800 MHz tmnked radio was bom from the'need to provide more channels for public safety users. Over the years, public safety allocations have shot up the spectrum like a thermometer--from VHF to UHF, then displacing some unused UHF television frequencies and finally into the 800 MHz band. Of course, major advances in radio technology alloWed this movement to continue to higher and higher frequencies. But when the requests finally hit 800 MHz and the FCC decided to allot a section of the band for public safety, they also dropped a very heavy requirement on the requesters--you must develop regional plans for usage to insure maximum use of the frequencies. In effect, the FCC told public safety, "Here you are, but make the most of it because there's no more." http://www.dispatchmonth!y.c0m/stories/stories_old/story_ 14-old.html 1/7/02 Page 4 of 6 Since that initial plan, each area of the country has been grappling with how to best allocate the band among its many public safety agencies. Following the strict guidelines set out by the FCC for submitting plans, the process has been slow. At least: three plans have been approved, but a FCC backlog is keeping many others from being fmalized. Technically Speaking Trunked radio is synqnymoUs with the 800 MHz band, although the technology can be applied to frequencies in any radio band. Only FCC rules and channel availability currently make the 800 MHz UHF band the most efficient for trunldng. In the future, trunking may become the standard in all radio bands. Like most other UHF systems, 800 MHz trunked systems are designed to be repeated and to use satellite receivers to provide complete coverage. Each. tmnked channel consists of a pair of frequencies--one base station frequency and one mobile frequency spaced 45 MHz apart. After the FCC allocated a portion of the 800 MHz band to public safety, they mandated a complex planning process for. each region of the country which wanted to use the band. They established 240 channel pairs for police, fire and related agencies with 12.5 KHz spacing in the 821-823 band. They also established five specific channels that all agencies must have for mutual aid and coordination. So far, submission of regional plans is going slow and the FCC approval process even slower. A few regions have-had plans stamped "OK" and individual agencies are now beginning to install tmnked systems. But most police and fire trunked systems are still in the early planning stages. How Does It Work? Despite its sophistication, tmnked 800 MHz is designed to shield the user from the all the technology. A radio operator needs to know nothing about how the system works or why, but' simply presses the button to receive the benefits of years of research. Basically, trtmked radio is method of making a group of radio channels available to several different groups through an electronic switching system that is controlled by a computer. For the end user, mmked radio systems don't have traditional channels. I~tead, each mobile radio in the system is assigned a "talk group," which is simply a programmable, internal identification that is transmitted each time the radio begins a broadcast. The ID is not heard by the dispatcher, but it's recognized by the computer controlling the radio system. For the radio techs, tmnked systems really do have channels, which are typically prOvided in groups of four or five. One channel is arbitrarily designated as the control channel and the other four are available for voice communications. In a conventional, one-channel radio system all mobile radios listen for a transmission the single channel. Everyone checks for a clear channel before broadcasting. When someone pushes the XMIT button, all other radios on the channel hear the transmission. Another user pushes the XMIT button to respond and. everyone hears that transmission, too. Fage 3 o~: 6 In a tmnked radio system, every radio is tuned to a control channel. When someone pushes the XMIT button, the mobile radio transmits its individual ID and assigned talk group ID on the control channel to the base station. It's heard only by the trunked radio system computer and the data is decoded. The computer does some "thinking", and instantly transmits a digital message back out on the control channel to all the system's radios. The digital message says, "Every radio on talk group XX, switch to channel 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4). Again instantly, every mobile with the same talk group code as the transmitting mobile switches to the assigned channel and they hear the calling mobile unit's voice transmission. Radios assigned to other talk groups continue to monitor the control channel and do not hear the voice transmission. When the transmitting mobile releases the XMIT button, all mobiles resume listening to the control channel -- and the process starts all over again if another unit transmits. A transmission can occur on any of the assigned voice channels. A user never knows exactly what frequency is being assigned-- and doesn't have to know, either. This complex channel-switching process happens in just milliseconds--so short a delay, that users don't notice that it's happening under most circumstances. But what happens if you turn on your radio during a transmission directed to your talk group? Or what if you drive out of radio range when your group receives a transmission? The radio companies have come up with various schemes to handle these situations, but there's always the chance that your mobile radio will loose track of which channel it's supposed to be listening to. Typical System Most tmnked systems are designed to incorporate several jurisdictions or agencies. The most common example is a city's police, fire, ambulance agencies and public works department. Most medium-sized cities could easily justify obtaining separate frequencies for each of its departments. Some of the frequency assignments might be in different bands -- police in UHF, fn'e, EMS in VHF-high and public works in VHF-low. But in a tmnked system, all four agencies would be equipped with 800 MHz radios, and each would be assigned a different talk,group ID. Normally all four agencies would operate on different talk groups and essentially have separate radio systems. But during planning for a Fourth of July parade, for example, you decide that all three agencies-should be on a single channel to coordinate their activities. You simply create a new.talk group, program the mobiles and portables from all four agencies with the new group ID and establish a command post using the same ID. Presto ! You have a new July 4th-only channel. With a conventional system, you'd have to go out and find a new frequency--slim chance. Of course, you can apply this same type of coordination to normal situations, too.' For example, you might program the public work departmenfs street sweeper radio to allow access to the police talk group, so the operator can report problems when he/she is working in the early morning hours. The possibilities for cooperation are endless once you have the technology and it's easy to use. Some user of tmnked radio say this reorganization process is complex and hard to perform on a routine basis. Others counter that it simply takes thorough training, strict system administration, and http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_old/story_ 14-old.html 1/7/02 Page 6 of 6 that the system's flexibility overcomes any increased complexity. Fail Safe As a cautious police officer, you might feel that putting an entire city's public safety agencies on one system would create a tremendous opportunity for disaster if the system fails. But trunked radio systems are designed so that a failure of one or more components doesn't affect communications. Back-up power supplies, such as batteries or a generator, insure that the system is always powered. Redundant radio components for each radio channel insure that a failed circuit board or electronic part doesn't cause that channel to go off the air. And since a mmked system is controlled by computer software, when failures do occur they can be handled automatically in an "intelligent" manner. For example, if the control channel fails, its duties can be shifted in seconds to one of the remaining communications channels. Channel availability is decreased somewhat, but no one suffers from an outage. Conclusion So far, tmnked technology has outpaced the ability of police agencies to get approval for its use, to specify systems and to appropriate money to build the systems. But large mmked systems for both single and multiple jurisdictions are now beginning to go on the air. Shortly, we may realize the promise that promoters have long made --to improve communications and service: copyright 1990-1994 911 Dispatch Services, Inc. p g po 1ce calls .I 1/09/2000 By Jack Leonard / Los Ahgeles Times The police radio used to be the ultimate piece of squad-car technology, as dependable to a cop in a jam as the trusty black-arid-white cruiser itself. But that was before sprawling office towers and parking structures started blocking radio waves. And before wireless phones - with their crystal clear reception - increased expectations for two-way communication, while at the same time stealing frequencies from radio users. Now, it seems, in this era of technological innovation, the crackling police radio is starting to show its age. Police and fire agencies across the country are using antiquated equipment developed in the 1950s and '60s that has failed in major emergencies. That problem is prompting departments to spend hundreds of millions on cutting-edge radio networks, only to encounter many new - and sometimes dangerous - breakdowns. In one extreme case in Atlanta, a new police radio network failed to pibk up an officer's call for help just moments before a rifle-wielding suspect wounded her and killed her partner. In Delaware, f'n'efighters resorted to shouting out of windows because their $50 million communications system didn't work inside high-rise buildings. In Los Angeles, police use a 21-year-old network so out of date that manUfacturers have stopped making parts for it. For years, cash-strapped technicians had to cannibalize parts from some hand- held radios to fix others. The problems reached a crisis during fl-re 1992 riots, when officers in the field faced a critical shortage of portable radios. The city is installing a new system. Orange County, Calif., began rolling out an $80 million network this year and experienced its own static - including several incidents that police say put their safety at risk. This summer, officers complained that new radios failed to pick up critical information from dispatchers during a building search for a murder suspect. ' "I think We've gone backward instead of forward," said Irvine, Calif., police Officer Jeffvan der Sluys Veer. Some of his colleagues now rely on their own cellular phones and pagers, he said, "anything they can to maintain communications." http://www.dallasnews.corn/cgi-bin/print.cgi?story=http ://ww.../210273_police_09nat. A.htm 12/12/01 The Dallas Morning News: Technology Page 2 of 2 The problem is part physics and part finances. The design of police radio systems makes it difficult for signals to penetrate the heavy steel and concrete of office buildings, parking garages, shopping malls and hospitals. As these structures sprout, they present major obstacles for officers trying to keep in touch with each other. Wireless phOnes also operate via radio waves, but engineering experts say they often provide far better service than police radios because the telephone companies place more radio towers in highly developed areas. Local governments simply don't have the money to match that kind of coverage - even with state-of-the-art systems.. "Our society has become such a technological monster that ... public safety has just been overshadowed," said Alan Burton, an Oregon-based consultant on emergency communications. Police and fire departments were once leaders in communications technology. In the 1920s, Detroit police unveiled the country's first one-way car radio. The development was quickly followed by two- way police radios. And soon, officers came to view their radios as an indispensable part of their crime-fighting arsenal. Until the early 1990s, most police radios operated at frequencies that were 400 megahertz or less - the same frequencies used by the burgeoning wireless communications industry. The explosion of cell phones and other technology sparked a modem-day "land rush" for radio frequencies. Police and fire departments found themselves without space to add radio channels even though their populations - and emergency call volumes - were rising. As calls flooded dispatch centers, officers had to wait in line to make a call - often delaying response times by crucial minutes. The biggest complaint is that the radios don't always work in many big structures and throughout entire patrol districts. Experts point out that radio waves on higher frequencies can't travel as far as those on the low frequencies previously used. To compensate, public safety agencies must add radio towers, which is often cost prohibitive. Additionally, the technology is vulnerable to interference from wireless'phone transmissions. Technicians have discovered that some cellular phone sites reduce police radios to static. "Dead spots" are reported elsewhere, including Portland, Ore., where a new 800-megahertz radio network was touted as state-of-the-art technology when it was installed in 1994. In July, the Oregon OSHA fmed the city $3,600 after determining that the radio system was already overtaxed and that failures sometimes prevent police officers from calling for help. "Officers are disgusted," said Sgt. Lonn C. Sweeney. Online at: http :llwww.dallasnews.comltechnology12102 7 3_police_O9nat. A.html ©2001 DallasNews.com htt~_://www.dallasnews.com/c~i-bin/print~- .~--'- _ _-,.o_'ce ' '- _ Groups Suggest 800 MHz Interference Solutions Groups Suggest Solutions to 800 MHz Interference Through cooperation and advance planning, public safety agencies and commerical radio service carders can reduce inteference on the 800 MHz radio frequencies they share, according to a report issued by joint users of the band. In the "Best Practices Guide" that the group of associations and companies compiled, blame for the interference was attributed to the huge growth in commercial wireless communications, intensive use of the 800 MHz band,'and of the fundementally different way that public safety and commercial radio systems are designed. The guide detailed the causes of the interference, which has rendered some public safety systems almost unuseable, and offered solutions on both sides for existing and new systems. The guide was compiled.by a group of subject matter experts from the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), the Cellular Telecommunications & Interact Association (CTIA), Motorola, Nextel and the Public Safety Wireless Network. Formation of the group was sparked in April 2000 dUring a meeting at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss issues of interference in the 800 MHz public safety band. At the time, the commission noted that anecdotal accounts appeared to correlate the increased interference with the expansion of commercial mobile radio systems, particularly enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio and cellular networks, using digital technology and using intensive frequency reuse. meeting ended with the FCC's conclusion that additional facts and analyses would be needed to L,~nc}usively establish the causes of the interference and to identify potential solutions. According to the interference.group's report, the FCC emphasized that, "All parties affected by this phenomena--both commercial and public safety--must work together and must share responsibility for identifying the causes of such interference, identifying mitigation alternatives, and developing joint planning and technical solutions for preventing interference." As a result, the report stated, "A number of participants agreed to form a working group to accomplish the FCC's charge." The organizations pooled their "knowledge, experience and expertise to develOp this 'Best Practices Guide' for parties experiencing commercial/public safety interference." Back Then The 800 MHz spectrum band was first allocated by the FCC for land mobile communications services in 1974 when it was moved from TV Channels 70 to 83 for use by public safety communications systems, private two-way radio, SMR, and cellular systems. This tn'st band covered 70 channels in the 809-815 MHz and 854-860 MHz. These channels were interleaved with 50 .channels allocated for private internal-use business systems and 50 channels, for Industrial/Land Transportation private internal-use systems. Some of the public safety channels were also adjacent to commercial Specialized Mobile Radio channels and some of the Business and Industrial/Land Transportation channels have since been converted to SMR use during http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2001/1_2001 14 ons.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Stow Archive Page 2 of 5 the past decade. In 1986 the FCC allocated an additional 6 MHz of spectrum in the 821-824.0 MHz and 866-869 MHz band for exclusive public safety use. "The FCC had no reason to expect that two-way systems allocated for these different uses would be in any way incompatible and might cause interference to each other," the report said. When public safety radio systems began using 800 MHz frequencies, the FCC had not yet adopted service rules-- much less licensed--cellular mobile radio systems and 800 MHz SMR systems were in their infancy. "In short, when the allocations...were promulgated, neither the FCC, the wireless industry, nor the public safety communications community could have anticipated the revolutionary changes in mobile communications technology that would occur during the 1990s, nor the explosive demand for commercial communications services and increased need for additional public safety communications capacity and capabilities." Since then, cellular mobile communications technology has advanced through intensive re-use using multiple, low-power base stations, and digital technology. "This has led to explosive demand for cellular and similar commercial wireless services at 800 MHz," the group's report noted. "At the same time, demand has also increased for public safety commurdcations to support additional mission critical services." Unforeseen Issues All this has led to "unforeseen consequences," the report said. "Under certain circumstances the mix of public safety and commercial systems on neighboring or adjacent spectrum has resulted in overlapping radio emissions from mobile communications systems designed at different times and for dissimilar operating environments." Specifically, public safety radio systems designed for the frequency coordinated, less congested and less intensively used RF environments of ten and 15 years ago, "may not be capable of rejecting locally robust commercial transmissions on adjacent frequencies." Similarly, some digital commercial networks, may also increase the local noise floor above that in which older public safety equipment was intended to operate, resulting in disrupted communications capability. And both public safety and commercial systems have migrated from systems that primarily use mobile devices to systems that increasingly use hand-held units, thereby increasing potential interference. Identify Issues The group described its guide as providing, "a broad overview of practices that can be Used to identify and alleviate interference between public safety systems and commercial systems." It also offers guidance on reducing interference for future systems through frequency planning, collocation or strategic location of public safety and CMRS base stations, system design improvements for either CMRS or public safety networks or both, equipment upgrades, frequency swaps and, if necessary, FCC nde changes or waivers. "The (guide) developers believe that the information presented herein will facilitate cooperation by public safety and CMRS operators throughout the country to prevent harmful interference between such spectrum uses." At this point the group's report dipped into a lengthy and sometimes detailed description of the conditions under which interference between public safety and other radio' systems can occur. Basically, "The answer lies in certain differences in the design parameters of these systems, which, in certain circumstances, result in conditions conducive to interference." These differences stem from the fact that public safety and commercial wireless systems were developed over time to serve two distinctly different user groups, using system architectures intended to best serve each groiap, the report said. Public safety systems have traditionally been designed to provide dispatch and coordinating communications to a comparatively small group of users over a specified area. Public safety users are typically divided into operational or tactical groups of individuals who often have a need to roam throughout their jurisdiction. Since all members of these operational/tactical groups need to participate in any given communication and since the individual members of the group may be at any location within the operating area, public safety systems are designed to provide radio coverage throughout a large area with little or no frequency reuse. , Fm:thermore, public safety systems must be capable of supporting large increases in capacity resultant from emergency situations that may occur at any time and at any place. Based on this, and that public safety agencies typically have limited financial resources, most public safety radio systems use high antenna site base stations and little or no frequency reuse to cost- effectively cover as much area as possible with the fewest sites, thereby holding fixed infrastructure costs to a minimum. This configuration can result in weaker signal strengths in areas distant as opposed to areas closer to the base station. These weaker signal strengths are acceptable as long as the signal from the base station is sufficiently strong to overcome the thermally-generated electrical noise inherent in the public-safety mobile receivers. Large User Base In contrast, the report stated, CMRS networks are designed to.provide service to a large user i>ase in a given area. The typical CMRS user has a higher average transmission time, because the typica! telephone call lasts much longer than the typical public-safety dispatch' call. Because the total amount of traffic generated by commercial users far exceeds the capacity of the available spectrum in the system's service area, the report said, the radio channels must be reused over and over throughout the area. This need to re-use channels, in mm, requires a carder to deploy large numbers of base stations .throughout its service area with each base station's trausmissious covering a very small area--a "cellular'~' system architecture. http ://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2001 / 1_2001 14 ons.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 4 of 5 At any given time, the report said, the signal from a CMRS base station to a mobile or portable unit is interfered with by signals from other cellular base stations on the same frequency. Careful system design can minimize, but not eliminate, such interference. This interference is the limiting factor on successful operation of a CMRS system. CMRS systems are therefore considered to be interference-limited rather than noise-limited. Four Problems When the two types of wireless systems are close both geographically and spectrally, the potential for interference exists--e~pecially where the public safety signal is weak due to base station distance or topographic features, relative to a closer commercial base station's signal, the report said. Public safety handheld and mobile units may experience interference effects when many commercial antenna sites in a given area are below 80 feet above ground level--thereby producing a particularly strong signal in the immediate street vicinity--and in fringe coverage/service areas where the strength of public safety transmissions is relatively weak. In such circumstances, public safety receivers may be overpowered in weak- signal or "fringe" areas by stronger nearby CMRS signals, rendering them useless. Interference to public safety radio transmissions in these circumstances falls into four major categories: intermodulation, receiver overload, transmitter sideband noise, and effects due to the transition from analog to digital modulation. The report described in detail each of the four types of interference, how and under what conditions it occurs. The discussion--too lengthy to include here--was definitely technical, but a close reading even by a layperson would provide some insights into the interference problem. The group's report also described how to operationally identify interference, noting that the location- dependent nature of the causes, and the typically short duration of public safety transmissions may complicate identification. Possible Fixes The remainder of the interference report dealt with minimizing the problem in existing and new systems. The group said that, while the number of reported cases of interference has not been large relative to the number of public safety communications systems, "The resolution of any instance of interference to a public safety system must receive the highest priority." For existing systems, the group advised the public safety agencies to contact the CMRS carriers operating in the affected area, talk to the engineering personnel, "to initiate evaluation of the interference to identify whether it is resulting from adjacent channel or geographically proximate CMRS operations." They added, "Public safety communications officers should assist in this process by working with CMRS operators to help identify the geographic extent of interference, the type of interference and to expeditiously test mitigation techniques." If CMRS operations are determined to be the source of the reported interference, the group suggested- DISPATCH. Monthly Story Archive Page 5 of 5 a number of measures to mitigate or eliminate interference. "Assuming that both the public safety and CMRS systems are operating in compliance with their FCC licenses and the FCC's rules, the parties should cooperate to determine the most efficient allocation of costs and resources necessary for interference mitigation, taking into account the costs and benefits of mitigative actions." The report listed the following possible fixes: · Retune CMRS channels further away from the public safety o ' perator s channels · Modify CMRS power levels, antenna height and antenna characteristics · Assure proper operation of base 'station equipment · Improve the local signal strength of the public safety communications system · Incorporating filters into the CMRS transmission equipment · Segregate public safety,and CMRS spectnun assignments · Advance plan new systems to avoid interference taking into account the above techniques · Minimize the susceptibility of receivers to inference · Design public safety systems with higher signal strength levels, particularly in intensive radio frequency areas The full interference report is available on the APCO Web site in Acrobat (pdf) format. Surf: www.apco911.org. Appeared: 1/2001 on page 14 copyright 2001, Allen Media http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2001/1_2001 14 ons.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 1 of 2 Feds analyze radio system, confirm problems It took roqk~e~ scientists to tell Chester County officials what they already knew about their 800 MHz tmnked radio system--it ha~,[oblems. At the request of one of the agencies using the EF Johnson system, the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) conducted a free study of the $14 million system implemented in 1997, and made some general recommendations on how to fix problems of interference, dead spots, interrupted transmissions and static. The NLECTC is a research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Rocky Mountain branch that focuses on public safety communications is based in Denver (Colo.). The center began its study after Lt. An.drew Chambers of the Tredyfffin police department wrote them a letter outlining problems with the radio system. "Our officers, local fire and (emergency management system) officials, and officers in adjoining jurisdictions have been adamantly insisting that the radio system does not work properly in a wide variety of circumstances to include many life-threatening situations," Chambers wrote. "It is their position that the way the system currently is functioning will get an officer or firefighter killed." Chambers said the county, elected officials, and consultants from EF Johnson needed assistance in identifying specific problems, causes and solutions. Edward Atldns, director of the county's Department of Emergency Services, said the center's recommendations are a "theoretical" approach to solving the radio network's difficulties. He said EF Johnson has been auditing and fixing problems, and that he hoped to have as optimum a system as EF Johnson can provide. Some Limitations 'The NLECTC report wasn't entirely comprehensive, as the agency itself admitted. Because of financial constraints and "a great deal of difficulty in obtaining critical information," the center conducted only a limited review of the system. "Implementation of the recommendations and execution of the future roadmap will require significant additional engineering effort," the report said. The agency did conduct interviews with police, dispatchers and .equipment vendors, and review county documents and vendor publications. The report suggested the county stop using tower-top and multi-coupler amplifiers, and avoid putting equipment near Nextel cellular transmission towers. The NLECTC recommended that EF Johnson collect baseline data on the system, and the county audit the repeaters and synchronization technology for stability. Lastly, the county should perform a modulation study at each tower site to detect intermOdulation that may be degrading the system's performance, and should install directional antennas at receivers sites http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2000/9 2000 23 ems.html 1/7/02 DISPATCH Monthly Story Archive Page 2 of 2 in the eastern portion of the county. ~ county commission chair Karen Martynick said she didn't see the federal study as providing any new information. "It will be helpful to us working through the issues of the 800 megahertz system," e saidl "Any assistance and ideas that are available to us, we're willing to take a look at." We're Out Meantime, Willistown police chief Hugh Murray announced his town will no longer use the county's radio system because of its problems. "A couple of weeks ago, I just got tired of hearing the static, and fired of hearing that the system was down again," Murray said. "I held offon making a decision because I was looking for the least bit of light at the end of the tunnel. I have yet tosee a.glimmer with this system." He said Willistown's police officer applauded when he told them his decision. p~)~ The Westtown-East Goshen police department also pulled out of the system. "We made the conscious decision for the protection of officers and the people, that until the problem is resolved, we will no longer be using the 800-megahertz system," said East Goshen supervisor Carmen Battavio. "We went [~,~back to the old system, which luckily was still installed." He said the police department collected 40 written complaints during the first 10 days of June. ' Appeared: 9/2000 on page 23 copyright 2000, Allen Media http://www.dispatchmonthly.com/stories/stories_2000/9 2000 23 ems.html 1/7/02 MOBILE RADIO TECHNOLOGY: Cooperating to solve spectrum interference ( Feature Article) By Lyle Gallagher Online Special, Sep 25 2001 Last winter, the Washington County (OR) Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) began experiencing interference with its radio system, putting officers from the Tigard Police Department in potentially dangerous situations. "If the officers were in the parking lot of their own police station, they couldn't receive any transmissions at all," says RoxAnn Brown, director of WCCCA. "If they were transporting a prisoner and had trouble, we couldn't talk to them and they couldn't talk to us. [The interference obstructed] their, data transmission and their verbal transmission." When the department determined that a recently constructed cellular tower was causing the interference, the agency worked with the cellular carder to repositiori the antenna. Unfortunately, that caused more problems. "They tweaked the antennas at such an' angle that it caused problems for a fire station," Brown says. "That's when we knew We had bigger problems." Situations like the one in Washington County occur'across the country every day; however, spectrum interference in public safety used to be rare. Spectrum had few users before the growth of cell phone use, wireless data transfer, advanced paging and fleet location tracking. It also was more segregated by bandwidth than it is now. Although new technology such as better receivers, stabler transmitters and mobile radio equipment-- is developing to help public safety agencies use spectrum more efficiently, the agencies are increasingly experiencing problems with communications interference. Cell growth Most spectrum interference stems from the use of cellular telephones because many cellular carders are licensed to use spectrum bandwidth that is close to the frequencies assigned to public safety. "There is a general lack of spectrum frequencies available for all users," says Ron Haraseth, director of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO), Daytona Beach, FL. "Early regulations for the 800 band placed both types of users in close proximity [sic] to each other." For example, WCCCA has an 800MHz mmked radio system that regularly competes with cell companies that are in the same band, Brown says. Public safety departments often have large jurisdictions, encompassing both heavily populated urban areas and sparsely populated rural areas. To cover all areas of their jurisdictions as equally as possible, they must spread equipment out, rather than concentrate it in urban areas. "Trunked radio system technology, as used in [public safety agencies], is very expensive," Haraseth says. "As a result, system planners attempt to cover the maximum amount of area and associated mobile vehicle and handheld units from each site." That was the case in Washington County. "We have a typical public safety mountain-top radio http ://industryc.../newsarticle.asp?Newsarticleid=237303 &SitelD=3 &magazineid=3 &mode=prin 1/8/02 TelecomClick Article Page 2 of 4 system [that was designed] to use few sites and cover a large area," Brown says: "WI/at happens is that [cellular companies] have a frequency, and we have a frequency; the frequencies come together and mirror each other, and our frequency is dead because [they have more power]." Generally, wireless carders have more money to invest in infrastructure and more discretion about where to concentrate it than do public safety agencies. Wireless carders are able to concentrate a large amount of spectrum in urban areas, where public agencies have cut back. That leaves public safety responders unable to hear a signal coming from five miles away because of a stronger, competing wireless signal coming from a distance of mere blocks. And some systems were designed before the need for resistance to spectrum interference became so acute. No one in the situation causes interference intentionally. Usually, both the manufacturers and the carriers are in compliance with the specifications and license limitations set' for them by the Federal Communications Commission. For its part, the FCC, charged with making public safety a priority, has repeatedly shown its commitment to stopping spectrum interference. The problem is that no one could have predicted that wireless technologies would take offthe way they have. No one knew that Some equipment regulations, specifications and other related practices would fall short when confronted With the unprecedented and growing demand for wireless technology. After all, the regulations were certainly capable of meeting the needs of a pre-wireless society. "Part of the spectrum management issue comes about because the cellular industry was not required to go through the same sort of coordination effort that everybody else had to go through. [That effort] required that if you were going to license a radio or expand it, you had to coordinate those frequencies and make sure that they were not going to interfere with someone else," Brown says. "With the cell industry, the FCC did not make them do that. [The FCC] allowed [the industry] carte blanche to go out and gather as many frequencies and build their systems as quickly as they could." Solving the problem Although cellular carriers may be at the root of the spectrum interference problem, they often are helpful in correcting it. "Everyone wants to clear it up," Brown says. "Most of the [cellular carders] -___are pretty cooperative. They understand that this is a life safety issue for us, and.., it is to their advantage, from a business perspective to cooperate and try to make the problem go away." correcting the problem takes time and effort from public safety agencies and private companies. WCCCA has worked with a local carder for the past seven months to correct the problems experienced by its police and fire agencies. The career has reduced its power about 75% and reduced its channels from 14 to four or five, Brown says. "They can't do that long-term and stay in business. We know that," she notes. "We have to figure out the next step and move forward. Is it going to be fixed tomorrow? No, but we certainly are committed to [fixing the problem], and I can tell you that [the company] is committed. My hope is that the rest of the providers are committed to working with us as well." In an effort to alleviate interference, several agencies have developed a guide. "The 'Best Practices Guide' was a joint effort to better quantify the problem, [determine] the scope of the problem and provide a basic look at the mechanics, solutions and manifestations of the problem," Haraseth says. "The [Best Practices Guide] was a direct result of a meeting called by the FCC [to address] http://industrvc.../newsart~icl_e__.~as~6~S.gi;t~' ._. - a. a ' e'_d--3&mo~ I elecomullCK/-krtlcle t'age 3 et' 4 complaints coming from public safety systems." The guide identifies the following steps that public safety agencies and local wireless carders can take to minimize interference. Re-tune channels. Local wireless carriers can modify their channel deployment and/or channel reuse plans to re-tune commercial channels farther away from public safety operators' channels. Increasing the channel separation to 1.5 MHz or more has been effective. "Since spectrum is so congested, the most likely method to increase frequency separation would require wholesale movement of many users, both public safety and commercial," Haraseth says. "That would take close cooperation by pubhc safety, the commeicial users, as well as the regulatory sector the FCC and possibly Congress." Modify power levels or antennas. Carders can modify their transmission power levels, antenna heights or other antenna Characteristics at sites that may have contributed to spectrum interference. · Increase base-station maintenance. Poorly operating equipment has been shown to exacerbate interference. Improve the signal strength of the public safety communications system. That can be accomplished by adding base stations, increasing the power output of existing stations, improving antennas or upgrading mobile and handheld equipment to more interference- resistant models. To finance those upgrades, agencies need to look at several solutions. "There is a general movement to consolidated systems," Haraseth says. "New systems are capable of handling all users [like police, fire, EMS] in-.a shared system, reducing the total cost. There is also a trend to [use] more atypical f'mancing such as creating independent agencies that are isolated and modeled along the lines of 'joint powers of authority,' much like [with] airports or public housing. Another trend is towards leased service systems where a service provider finances the system, installs and operates the system for a fee." Add filtration to the transmission site. If"sideband noise" (a by-product of transmission in which some energy is produced on frequencies above or below the licensed frequency) is contributing to the interference problem, filtration can be added at the transmission site to suppress sideband emission and reduce interference. "Filtering in the radio frequency (RF) environment is much like putting blinders on a horse," Haraseth says. "It removes the annoying adjacent information. "Filtering in RF is highly specific [to each] channel. Any change in one system will require a new filter or at least a re-ming of existing equipment. Commercial systems tend to change their channel assignments to match changing dynamic customer demands. That can make solutions [to the spectrum interference problem] a changing target?' Segregate public safety and commercial spectrum assignments. Receiving FCC permission to swap or reassign channels so that public safety frequencies are not co-located with commercial frequencies can often mitigate interference problems. · Encourage comprehensive advancedplanning and frequency coordination. As in most things, prevention is better than cure. http ://industryc.../newsarticle.asp?Newsarticleid=237303 &SitelD=3 &magazineid=3 &mode=prin 1/8/02 TelecomClick Article Page 4 of 4 · Buy interference-resistant equipment. New public safety radio equipment should incorporate the resistance necessary for the equipment to function properly in RF-intense environments. Make sure system 'design fits the environment. Public safety systems intended to function in RF-intense environments must be designed to a high degree of intensity. The design should include increased signal-strength generation throughout the service area. Not only will it compensate for adjacent-spectrum commercial entities, but it also will help deal with other sources of interference. For more information about decreasing spectrum interference, consult "Best Practices Guide: Avoiding Interference Between Public Safety Wireless Communications Systems and Commercial Wireless' Communications Systems at 800 MHz." The report was published by APCO; Schaumburg, IL-based Motorola; Reston, VA-based Nextel Communications; Washington, DC-based Cellular Telecommunications and Intemet Association; and Fairfax, VA-based Public Safety Wireless Network. The entire "Best Practices" report is available at APCO's Web site, www.apco911.org. Lyle Gallagher is a past president of APCO International, Daytona Beach, Fla. © 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, Yedisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, 'n any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Corp. j~OBJLE RADIO TECHNOLOG~ Morgan O'Brien heads 'Nextel Peace Corps' Don Bishop Editorial Director dbishop@primediabusiness.com www.mrtmag.corn I~lobile Radio Technology, Sep :[, 200:[ Nextel: I hope you'll Write something nice about us for a change. MRT: We'd like to. That was our witty exchange with a top-level Nextel Communications official at the APCO International closing banquet on Aug. 9 in Salt Lake City, about an hour before NexteI's vice chairman, Morgan O'Brien, spoke to a dinner audience of delegates and guests. It's tree that we haven't had much good to say about Nextel. We've written about alleged perjury by one of the company's attorneys in a licensing matter; alleged irregularities in the grant of licenses for thousands of frequencies to a Nextel merger partner on a Saturday at the FCC's Gettysburg, PA, office; and the employment by Nextel of former FCC officials (at six-figure salaries plus stock options) who made decisions favorable to the company during their government service. Nextel boasts of using spectrum-efficient technology to serve eight million customers on SMR spectrum that the company estimates might support one million analog dispatch customers. We disparage the same "accomplishment" because Nextel doesn't use the spectrum to offer the low-cost dispatch service on which business and industry rely. Analog SMR operators offer the low-cost dispatch service, but Nextel continues tobuy their systems and convert them for wireless telephone service. (At least one other digital SMR offers low-cost dispatch, too, but Nextel seems about to gobble it up.) While possibly uplifting the wireless ' telephone business, Nextel has made access to affordable radio communications tools more difficult for business and industrial dispatch users. Those are some of the things we've had to say about Nextel. Is it any wonder the company's media representatives and senior management stopped returning our calls several years ago? Until the subject of 800MHz interference came up. While covering news about interference from a Nextel cell site that blocked reception of truck drivers' radio calls at a recycling company's office, we left a phone message with Nextel. Just routine. Didn't expect a return call. We were surprised and pleased to get one. The Nextel representatives'to whom we spoke didn't want the story to run, but it did, on our Web site, with their comments included. Nextel is secretive. That's the company's right, of course. For example, it signs SMR operators to non-disclosure agreements covering system returning projects and system buy-outs. It won't talk much about actions it takes that affect dispatch users. Refreshingly, Nextel is more open when it comes to 800MHz interference problems, at least when http ://industryclic.../magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid= 118560&magazineid=3 &mode=prin 1/8/02- IndustryClick Article Page 2 of 2 public safety radio systems are involved. Morgan O'Brien stepped right into the lion's den to tell APCO members that the leopard had changed its spots. O'Brien described Nextel as aggressive and territorial and its legions of lawyers as well-trained, well-disciplined, battle-tested and not afraid of hand-to-hand combat. He went on to explain that, when it comes to public safety interference, the situation calls for the opposite of the warlike tactics for which Next~l is known. "I'm here in a new role, which is heading up the 'Nextel Peace Corps,'" O'Brien said. At his request, Nextel's board of directors has placed O'Brien in charge of resolving interference with public safety radio communications systems. Short-term, that means reprogramming Nextel cell sites. Long-term, that means returning public safety radio communications systems to frequencies as far removed from those Nextel uses as possible and practical. Nextel will codify its long-term solution in a pleading before the FCC scheduled for submission in October. At most, public safety agencies, directly or through APCO, should submit proposals of their own. At least, they should file comments when the time comes. O'Brien: "This is the beginning of the process.~You may find me annoying for my persistence. You will learn to trust me and the Nextel team that our motivation is the same as yours. We have the utmost respect for the mission-critical nature of your radio systems and the importance of our participating with you to make sure it continues." What O'Brien said is good, yet our advice is summed up. best in the words of President Ronald Reagan in connection with nuclear arms reduction: "Trust but verify." Now, if that wasn't nice, at least it wasn't a knock in the head. Nice comes with evidence of progress. Peruse the text of Morgan O'Brien's speech on MRT'a Web site. www.mrtmag.com © 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced,.rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, dis played, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Corp. ~h.tlp_2/Zilldllstrvclic~../m_gga_zj~earticle~60&ma~mz'me/~ - - ' · ': _ . muustrycnc~ ~n:ucm ~'age [ oI 2 ' C ' CiW '_at. oun¢ System links county's emergency agencies American City & County Staff American City & County, Jan l.~ 2001 This yeai:, C~Ohi_'o, - -ill complete installation of a communications system that will link the county's emergency operations., T~s ~e_~!l~.l~~oice, data and paging components, and enhance coordination of agencies during emergency response. ~u~_ml_'les Clermont County is home to 180,000 people in 14 townships, 12 villages and two cities. The region is dotted with remote hills and valleys along the Ohio River and far-flung rural areas to the northeast of Cincinnati. That terrain not only hampers communications between emergency personnel, but also produces "dead spots," where communication is impossible. A string.of natural disasters, beginning in 1987, convinced Clermont County officials to begin planning for a shared public safety communications system. "That year, we almost lost a firefighter because we couldn't tell him to get down off a burning hill," says Clermont County Commissioner Martha Dorsey. "During the wildfires that swept parts of the county, emergency personnel not only battled winds and flames, but they had to battle to communicate." Ten years later, a devastating flood and then a powerful tornado hit the county. The flood, in particular, required a rapid, coordinated, mUlti-agency response, which was not Possible, says Beth Nevel, director of the county's public safety services. "Many of our emergency units were unreachable by radio," she explains. "We also had 20 units trying to talk on the same channel at the same time. We had no common frequencies or talk groups that would enable firefighters, police officers or people from outside the county to communicate and coordinate emergency resources." In 1999, the county hired Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola to design and install a new communications system. With input from 27 of its public safety agencies, the county had defined what it needed for data capture, processing and storage, and those requirements were incorporated into the design. The system components will be integrated in phases over the next year. They include a five-channel, 800 Megahertz, mixed-mode, digital simulcast, tmnked radio system; a single-channel, wireless data system; and an alphanumeric paging system. Additionally, the county is purchasing 1,500 mobile and portable radioS; nearly 200 mobile data terminals; and more than 1,500 pagers. The trunking system provides the communications backbone for the entire county, and it can be expanded and upgraded as needed. It allows agencies to communicate privately as they respond to day-to-day calls for service and communicate in pre-determined talk groups to coordinate emergency response. Already, the county's police, fire, EMS, public works and transit departmems have been added to the voice system, and public safety personnel for the cities Will be added next. By this spring, the http://industrycli.../magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=65764&magazineid=l 15&mode=prin 1/8/02 IndustryClick Article Page 2 of 2 wireless mobile data system will be installed, allowing law enforcement officers to create and file 'incident reports, access databases and receive reports from a terminal mounted in their vehicles. "This communications capability not only reduces our public safety response time, but also enhances officer safety because we can relay information to them immediately," Nevel says. In the future, the county plans to add a global positioning capability that will further enhance response. "County dispatchers will be able to advise departments of road detours, blacktopping projects, anything that interferes with the timely response of emergency units," says Clermont County Administrator Steve Wharton. The new communications system was tested extensively last September, and, according to Wharton, provides the county with 99 percent coverage. "The real proof will come with our next emergency," Dorsey says. "But,. now, all the different public safety services involved will have a clear, effective way of communicating with each other when the time comes, making it safer for everyone involved." © 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, .in any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Corp. ....__..._.~~li..2ma gp_z._in_e arti cle~ag CiW &, CounW. Communications system links agencies Robert Weller American City & County, Aug 1, 2000 By the end of 2000, ~un -t - ... C_?.lo., expect to complete construction of a countywide co~~g~T~t~J-governmental project the city and county have undertaken. Th~n~ s,.stem is the culmination of more than four years of work to design and implement a communications netwOrk that can be shared by Colorado Springs Utility (CSU) and govemmental agencies,.including public safety and public service. Limited interoperability was a driving force behind the project; communications technology used by some agencies was incompatible with that of others, making it difficult to efficiently handle even the most routine calls that required a multi-agency response. The Colorado Springs population, which had reached 360,000,.had expanded west of the city, contributing to the need for a broad Communications coverage. Furthermore, coverage could be unpredictable, thanks to the city and county topography. (The city's elevation ranges from 6,300 to 6,800 feet in the east, and rises sharply in the west, reaching 14,110 feet at Pikes Peak.) The existing systems could not be expanded because additional frequency bands were unavailable. Mandates on spectrum efficiency from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) meant agencies soon would have to replace aging systems to meet narrow-banding requirements. In June 1999, Colorado Springs and El Paso County created an inter-governmental agreement that formed the Pikes Peak Regional Communications Network Agency (PPRCN). Operated by a board that includes representatives from the city, county and CSU, PPRCN will manage the procurement, installation and operation of the shared communications system. The utility, which provides electric, gas, wastewater and water services to the city, already operated an 800 Megahertz analog system that could serve as the technological foundation for the countywide network. To determine whether a digital application of the technology could support inter- governmental communications needs, a project team conducted a variety of field tests. (For example, the team drove more than 3,000 miles over a four-week period to verify coverage for selected sites.) With input from CSU, local government agencies and the project team, PPRCN selected 800 Megahertz, tmnked, dual-mode technology (i.e., digital technology with analog capabilities) for its new network. Last September, it contracted with Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola to design and install the network, and construction of nine system sites is now under way. When the system is fully installed, it will include 75 channels; more than 4,100 digital, portable radios and mobile radios; and consoles at three dispatch centers. (It has additional capacity to accommodate future expansion.) Agencies are being organized into talk groups to enhance the system's interoperability. http://industrycli.../magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=69046&magazineid=l 15 &mode=prin 1/8/02 IndustryClick Article Page 2 of 2 The system will be tested during the first quarter of 2001. CSU will be the first user, and other agencies will migrate later in the year. The agencies that will share the system include, from Colorado Springs, the Airport Authority; Transit; Facilities; Fire; Golf Courses and Cemetery; Parks; Pikes Peak Highway; Police; Streets; Traffic Engineering; and Transportation. From E1 Paso County, they include the Coroner's Office; Parks; Transportation; the District Attorney's Office; Fire; Search and Rescue; and the Sheriffs Office. The entire system will operate in the dual mode initially, giving CSU the time to budget for new 'digital hardware. Eventually, it will operate primarily as a digital network. However, analog channels will be maintained for mutual aid communication with outside agencies. Colorado Springs and E1 Paso County are among the fastest-growing regions in the country. The new communications system will enhance service efficiency and help ensure that the city and county governments keep pace with continuing growth. This article was written by Robert Weller, project manager for PPRCN and deputy chief of the Support Services Division for the Colorado Springs Fire Department. © 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, dis played, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Corp. the SOO-MHz band to eliminate its nationwide at once. Thus, our neighb3rin~ interference with public safety frequencies was unveiled last ~veek. (Has the' ~ounty's.~!consultant~[ briefed.the supervisors'on the implicati~ns?~ ' There are no surprises'.. Nextel proposes - to move'al~ public safety users and ' ' '-c~taln'"0ther users' elsewhere on'the 800-MHz band or to' the Zoo-MHz'band'. so that the%ompany can consolidate its .own frbquencie~.-UnfortUnately, what i~ good for Nextel is not good'for Fauquier. So overwhelming are the financial ' and/operational consequences of the plan that R'will likely take many years of coordination and conflict r. esolutidn among Nextel, the r~dio...V, endors,, the public safety community, Other mobile communication proxddars and the Federal Communication Commission ~o resolve. - Since the FCC made a major miscue in ', assigning, public safety ffeqiXencies'to the 80o-" MHz b~ud, a mistake that will require an'expend/. ture of more than $1 billion't6 rectify, You can expect that the coordination process will be. lengthy, Assuming some variation :of the proposal is.ultimately. . approved'by all parties,, public safety users of 800-MHz equipment ~ such as Fa/trax 'CoUnty and Prince William CoUnty ~ may have to scrap their newly Purchased. radios. At best.,.~hey will have to be "retuned' at considerable cost. While Nextel has offered to Underwrite a POrtiOn of $1 billion or so needed to implement the Chang~s~ ind./v/dual jurisdictions,'.having spe~: millions.on ove~p~i'ced 800~MHz iadio~ will pay even mo~e ~o replace them or get them [o work. When Nextel. Vice Chairman Morgan O'Brian ~old public safety communication officials, that jurisdictions needed to. come up with '-'creative financing proposals.' to deal with the problem, what he was saying, was get.toe,dy to absorb the It will take two 'to three, years after the replanning proposa1 is adopted before the dust settles and radios are retuned or replaced. Per .George bought Motorola SOO-MHz systems to.achieve:...- ':in~er0perabflity (a Moforola sales pitch).~l1 ~ikel~' b~6~-shiPdng f~equen~ies.fO~ seve~al,.~a~s. bottom l/no'is.that/twill take.five.~0 .-~ seven years for'the "dust to settle'?bn ".' this ma~o~ chang6, :and current a~d ~ .:'//. 'prospective owners 6f 8oo-MHz Syste~! will.beI in. disarray.for much. bf that tim6, What .are the.impli~atio~i~ for ...Fauquier? .... ., .:. ' First;:-the.pr~cess' of 0btalni~g.... licenses; then ch~mgfi~g the freduenci'eS/' or bands on the.licenses,.recoordinatin~' the assignmantswiththepianning. ': I' lbo?/es and r.ec0nflgur, ing the.equipmen~ '.'will takeyearsland- Costl.unkno~n suins:l · ofm0hey' ... ' ' " -Sec°nd;Jthe 800,MHzradi0s that! Fauquier is negotiating to buy. from -' "Motorola are abo~t tO bec~m~, obsolete. Indeed, the county, goes.forward with the n~ntract now in' negotiation; ~he .radios 'will.be 9bsolet~ bef6re they are. e.ven deliVared~ Indeed, Motorola has jUSt '" arniounced .the release'~)~eir new 800-MH~ Internet proto'col digital radios that operate across several bands, including the replacement bands" Nextel'suggests for public safety usem Motorola, which owns a controlling:int~res~ in Nextel, has known' for some t/me'that th~ MHz ba~d would have to be replanned. (Did the county's "consultant know this?) .... . tO.he scr . p.e. :or ae en . aO en what the ultimates}/d cJ es. -....- · system, they Will actimmediatelyto re-~nergize. 'thelS0-MHzYadio initiative'by funding Booz~ ..:.Al16h and Hamilton'to resume specifyinga ~50- MHz System and going ~orward expeditiously to obtain vendor proposals. .Ou? ~urrent system is. not "self-keelingS,' It. · will·not sustain us for another five-plus years till -the 800-MHz fiasco is sorted out. And wh'en it is, an 800-MHz system will still be overly costly because of the poor coverage characteristics of. that freq.uency. There '~s no Santa Claus here. OUr supervisors' initial decision to pursue an 800:MHz system purchase can .be chalked'up.to their being misinformed or misguided by "consult- . ~ts" and over-zealous proponents. Now, how- -ever, they .have had" the benefit of enormous .. amount Of additional information. There is no How should'our supervisors procee'd'in light.: excuse'for continuing to pursue a misguided· f Nextel s extraordinary propo, sal?,.it is inconceivi', decision. able. that a rational, p~udent.public body would ~- ·" ' ' ' " .- ' i .. ' ' Additionally given the current state of proceed to.buy the "old" 800:MHz radm system at" disarray o~ the 800~z p'~-blic safety Spectrum, this time. It will.take Fanquie~ at least three io "[~' continuing't0'pi~sue sfi~h a system can bb called ' four,years.'to' deploy'an 800-MHz system; by whic~~ ....... ' .... irresponsible, OU~ SUpe~i~0~s have a sec0hd time the.equipment wodl'&have to be scrapped .ori!. chance'l~ere to re-examin6'~th~i~"aarlie~ decision. retuned, depending, on what t]/~: FCC ultimately ' If our supervisors have any real. conce~a for our public safety personnel, if. they have any real interes~ ~n providing the ditizans Of Fauquier witl~" a reliable;.high-performance; affordable radio For the sake Of the citizens ~'~i :our'~irefighters, emergency rescue perSonnel and l~v.0fffc'~rs, let. AWa. rrenton res/dent, the writer works for the .. "": Untitled Document Page 1 of 1 How Much Does the FCC Hate Public Safety? by Peter Szerlag Caution-all thoughts and opinions are packaged in volume - some settling may have occurred (to the aft). Does the FCC hate all public safety agencies in a major way? Well, let's look at the "factoids"- 1. The 800 MHz radio bands were opened in 71980. Many of these were apparently bought up by speculators and never put to use. 2. The FCC has allowed NEXTEL to infest the 851 to 855 MHz band thereby causing interference to public safety user.s, and also causing a huge shortage of available radio frequencies for business and public safety users. 3. The FCC neglected to initially take the common sense step of splitting the 453 MHz and 460 MHz bands, thereby creating a huge shortage of UHF frequencies in urban areas. The major radio companies therewith began chanting: "tmnked- trunked -tnmked". 4. In the early 1990s, the FCC furthered'its assault on the public safety users remaining on the 150 MHz band by requiring them to use lower and lower power levels. 5. The FCC has now frozen the 700 MHz band for 4 years and refuses to force the TV industry to understand that over-the-air broadcasting is dead, dead, dead! 6. If the FCC did 1 second of research on the problems of public safety users, they would immediately commit $1 million to eliminating doubling. 7. Coded squelch systems are not used by the tmnked radio systems now operating. Therefore, as soon as the implementation of tmnked radio moves to the suburbs, massive failures will be experienced when skip conditions occur. 8. Add this all up hnd you will see why the public safety radio systems in the USA are so fragmented and disastrously ineffective. copyright 1999 Allen Media httr)://www-disr)atchmonth_ ~ _ ._ l_v.com/stories/stories 99/storv- 19-nov99.html i/7/02 Page 1 of 1 Repeat 8 Things to Ponder Before Going 800 MHz * Who's going to pay for it? A really well-dOne 800 MHz tmnked system can cost millions--San Francisco will soon spend up to $50 million to cover its 46 square miles. * Are there frequencies? If you don't have them assigned by now, you may be out of luck. Most of the allocated 800 MHz band frequencies have already been given out to your neighboring cities and counties. Maybe you can share their system--for a cost. * Can we afford a system large enough to handle all of our city's departments? A tmnked system inherently means "sharing." But, as any 7 year-old will tell you, you can share only so much. If you have a 5-channel system, user #6 pressing the XMIT button is out of luck. And you may be limited in obtaining more channels by the first two issues--money and frequencies. * Do we really need all the features that a full-blown tmnked system provides? Besides basic radio communications, tnmked systems include unit ID, individual unit calling, remote pro~gramming, unit status, emergency notification and other features. * Can the system be engineered carefully enough to cover our jurisdiction, both transmitting and receiving? When the frequency goes up, the engineering becomes more important. The 800 MHz band is line-of-sight, subject to weather and blocking by foliage, concrete and other massive structures. If you spend enough, you might be able to install additional receivers and transmitters to cover your jurisdiction. * Is there enough redundancy to weather.any type of power, computer, weather or God-inspired .occurrence? The current systems are good, but anything computer-related has its failures. Do you have a hand-cranked transmitter fall-back? (just kidding) * who's going to administer the system and its users once it's on-line? Unlike push-and-talk systems, someone has to keep track of radio users, talk groups, fleets, IDs and other arcane tmnked information. Is public works ready to handle this, or will the police department be assigned the duty? * Will we be "locked out" of communications with our neighbor cities and counties because they can't afford to move to 800 MHz trunked? "Good fences make good neighbors," but trunked radio may make enemies. If you have good working relations with adjacent cities who have no money, can they share your system? Can you afford to give them a control station that accesses your system. copyright 1995 911 Dispatch Services, Inc. ...... l/7/(19 WirelessWeek.com Page 1 of 1 <<< Back I Print Wire. www.wirelesswee k.com Industry Weighs Nextel Public Safety Proposal By Allyson Vaughan December 3, 200:! Wireless Week ~..WASHINGTON--It happens in Denver, Las Vegas and scores of cities throughout the country. As carriers build out networks, interference problems between commercial mobile radio service providers and public safety entities in the 800 L,,,z band grow. With complaints to the FCC on the rise, the industry is considering a proposal from Nextel Communications Inc. to dedicate more spectrum in the 800 HHz band for public safety. Specialized mobile radio services, business'radio, industrial and land transportation radio systems, public safety and cellular communications systems in the band all would be affected by the proposal. Potentially, hundreds of business and industrial users could be forced to relocate to other spectrum, which would be complicated and costly if the proposal is approved. "We support a solution, but we need to look at this and say, 'Is this the only way to get out of the problem?' "says Sharpe Smith, director of industry and public affairs at the Industrial Tel ecommunicaUons Association. CTIA is reviewing the proposal, says spokesman Travis Larson. Nextel says 36 megahertz of land mobile radio spectrum should be realigned and another 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 800 HHz .band made available for public safety. Under its proposal, Nextel would contribute its 700 MHz guard band and 900 MHz SMR licenses to make spectrum available to relocate 800 MHz incumbents, The amount of spectrum available in the 800 HHz band for public safety would more than double, increasing from 9.5 megahertz to 20 megahertz But as one industry source asks: If Nextel, the predominant commercial licensee in the 800 MHz band, is one of the primary causes of .the interference, why should other business and industrial users be forced to relocate? · Nextel says it would relocate from its current licenses at its own expense and commit up to $500 million to relocate other 800 MHz users. But Nextel says that other cellular operators and CMRS licensees also should contribute to the public safety retuning costs. tel suggests the FCC start a rulemaking on the proposal and adopt changes within six months. In the face of several other thorny policy L.~ agency may not be able to act that quickly, debates, however, ~.Still, as Alan Caldwell, director of government relations at the International ~Association of Fire Chiefs in Fairfax, Va., says: "We simply cannOt have a firefighter or police officer in trouble because some teenager is on the hone talking to his girlfriend." The IAFC and other pub c safety grou s havePvroiced ~.support for Nextel's proposal. P <<< Baek I Print httr)://www.wirele.q.qweek_cnm/incle× a~n?lnvcmt~-mrlnt ~',a~e~nrtleleTr3=(2A 1R437c~X~clnp icl= 19/19/01 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 1 of 7 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont? Two scientists Give their Views Background to this essay: Cisco Systems founders Leonard Bosack and Sandy Lerner spoke with this editor last year about Fauquier County's Plan to build an 800 MHz digital trunked simulcast Public Safety Radio System throughout the County. Shortly afterward they wrote an essay, which has its web premiere below. In it they explore the science of radio propagation and the economics and politics of pushing cellular radio coverage into rural America. County Sheriff and Communication Board Chairman Joseph Higgs had been in the news because of poor maintenance of his VHF low-band [39MHz] system. He rePeatedly blamed any problems that arose on "tube type" technology. In fact the Sheriff's 100 watt GE transmitter was solid-state; fire-rescue's Motorola was a 330 watt tube-type.~His no-bid maintenance contract on the equipment provided no periodic, documented electronic inspections or preventive maintenance and no environmental audit. Those factors plus improper lightning.protection of equipment and poor placement of antennas were the real causes of system failures, poor performance, and poor coverage. Since the writing of the essay the radio system maintenance was put out for competitive bid; the no-bid contractor lost but the Sheriff insisted the winner be replaced after several months; the old contractor was back. Fortunately for Fauquier citizens, the Virginia State Police moved into the transmitter building and cleaned the site. After the Fauquier Supervisors passed a resolution endorsing a new 800 MHz system the County'started making improvements to the existing system. They are still incomplete. At the time of the essay the Sheriff used only one transmitter/receiver site to dispatch for 660 square miles. When citizens called for system improvements he said it would be foolish to spend money fixing the 2- frequency low-band system; better to buy a new $4.2 million 20 frequency 800 MHz digital trunked simulcast system. It is odd that to solve the coverage_problem of a 2 dispatch-frequency simplex system with no capacity problem (used at 12% of capacity) the Sheriff advocates a 10 channel trunked system in a frequency band noted for coverage problems. Since the essay was written, coverage problems continue in the Delaware and Phoenix 800 MHz systems. Washington, D.C.'s 800 MHz fire radio system is said to suffer from 48 significant dead zones. Other 800MItz systems around the U.S. have http ://www. fauquiemews, corn/083101 issue.htm 11/8/01 8~00 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 2 of 7 experienced the increasing problem of INEXTEL and cellular transmitter interference. Still the Sheriff demands his 10 channel 800 MHz trunked system. The County was issued a l_icense in May, 2001 for six channels in the 800 band at one site at a power level lower than needed even as part of a 4-site system. The County forgot to ask the FCC for slow-growth implementation so it has one year to 'obtain the rest of the licenses and get the system built and operational. Here is the essay of Sandy Lerner and Leonard Bosack: We are frequently asked what kind of computer to buy. ©ur stock answer is, "Today is never a good day to buy a computer." Any Computer. Why? Because digital technology is, after thirty years, still a very rapidly evolving technology and improvements in price and performance continue at a rapid rate. OK, everyone knows this. So, what if you wanted to buy a computer, but the salesperson said that you had to pay for it now, but wouldn't be able to use it for two years? Maybe you wouldn't ever be able to legally use it? And, in the process of purchasing the computer, the price had tripled? For the same computer? Oh, and add to this that a couple of your neighbors bought this same computer, and it sometimes doesn't work. Would you still buy the computer? And, what if you already had a computer that still did what you needed, but was getting a little cranky because you hadn't serviced or updated anything in the twenty years you'd had it. Would you tell the salesperson to take a hike and get your old computer fzxed? We would.. Now, make the price tag of that new computer not $4 million as originally quoted, but $12 million. In fact, your neighbor [Delaware] had the price of their new system quadruple from $14 million to $50 million, and it still doesn't really work. Your annual maintenance costs will be more than ten times as high as your current system, $450,000 a year. Make the two-year problem the lack of FCC licenses available and no assurance that there would ever be any legal'way to employ your new system. What if we told you we could fix up your old system for less than one-tenth of the interest on the money for one year? And, finally, add the fact that simple physics tells anyone who looks that the new system will never Work very well in your neighborhood. Still going to buy that computer? This is precisely the scenario that the Fauquier County Sheriff has proposed with the new 800 megahertz, Public Safety radio system. The system must be purchased this fall, but won't be delivered and installed for eighteen months. At the end of that time, as now, there may be no FCC licenses available for new systems in that radio band. When we were asked to informally review the current proposal, two things were am~allinzlv clear: that the t~rot~osed system will not ever work vrot)erlv, or even 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 3 of 7 adequately, in a wooded, hilly environment, such as FaUquier County; ~nd secondly, that the current system is appropriate, adequate, but desperately needs competent maintenance. What are the real issues here? Why is the Fauquier Sheriff's Office so convinced that Fauquier County needs the new 800 MHz system for Public Safety? The simple answer is marketing on Motorola's part. Let's briefly review the technical history of Public Safety radio systems: In the early eighties, Motorola made a good business out of selling VHF based Public Safety radio systems. Such a good business, in fact, that there are few other players in this market today, and practically no other vendors for 800 MHz Public Safety systems. This means that Motorola has an effective monopoly in the 800 MHz marketplace. Now, Motorola can only sell so many Public Safety radio systems before everybody has one. Add to this the fact that Motorola is a huge player in cellular telephone technology. What has happened since the early eighties? An explosion in the cell phone marketplace, of course. So, what is the cash cow for Motorola these days? You can bet it's not a few thousand Public Safety systems. It's cellphones. What do you do if you are Motorola and you have installed all of the "old" Public Safety systems you can and you are spending all of your research and development money on 800 MHz cellular'technology because that's where the money is? Already the urban areas are pin-cushioned with cellular transmitters installed by the cellular service providers. But the rural counties which make up much of America are essentially without cellular telephone coverage because the cellular service providers either cannot get the large number of transmission facilities installed in any profitable way, and/or they are prevented from doing so because of environmental objections raised by the local populace who do not want the countryside pin-cushioned by towers. What do you do then? Well, if you are Motorola, you fall back on your Public Safety radio customer base, . telling them that the New Technology is absolutely necessary for Public Safety. Objections which were raised on environmental grounds give way immediately in the interest of Public Safety, and Public Safety system towers are put up throughout the rural areas. Unsurprisingly, it is now cost-effective to put the Cellular telephone transmitters on the new towers as' the tax-payers have paid for the new towers, and presto! Motorola can sell even more cellular telephones, everywhere! Were the 800 MHz Public Safety systems really necessary to promote Public Safety, or just to sell more cellular telephones? [Click here to view two representative Fauquier cases in which Public Safety was woven into cell tower application arguments. Click here to view a proposal floated by Fauquier Supervisor Weeks to collaborate in the deployment of the 800 MHz system along with a cell tower network. J Our first question is, if the old VHF-based [39 and 150 MHz]. systems were not good http ://www.fauquiemews.com/083101 issue.btm 11/8/01 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 4 of 7 I'UOIlC 3alety systems, wny tll{l /37o OI ali u.3. puonc salety agencies ouy mem.~ lnere are only three .possible answers." all of those community officials were stupid, Motorola lied about the' efficacy of the old systems, and/or Motorola is misrepresenting things now. Well, the thousands of installed Public Safety VHF systems are working, so that makes 'the first two guesses impossible. So the answer must be the last reason. And, if you asked the officials in Delaware and Phoenix, Arizona, who purchased the new systems, they wouM probably agree. Our second question is, why isn't a new 800 MHz Public Safety system good for Fauquier if it's so good for Motorola? Well, Motorola is relying on economics, but unfortunately any new Public SafeW system needs to rely on physics: the quarter- wavelength role, to be precise. Briefly, the problem is that any radio wave is blocked by any object whose depth is greater than one-quarter of the length of the wave. For the systems which use 800 MHz waves, this means that any object of greater size than four inches will stop the waves from transmitting..OK, so what? Radio transmission interacts with foliage in a frequency range that's wider than one would initially expect from the quarter-wave penetration role. The reason is that leaves become re-radiators. Much like a dram, an object can absorb and then re-radiate energy when its perimeter is about a quarter-wavelength of the incident field. The exact size of the "dram effect" depends upon the angle that the radio wave approaches, the leaf, the conductivity of the sap, etc., making this is a complex quantitative analysis. But qualitatively~ if you draw a straight line between any transmission/receiver pair} and there are a lot of leaves or clusters of leaves that are 4 inches across or larger, there will be significant attenuation because of scattering primarily, and absorption secondarily, The current VHF system would need leaves more than 40 inches in diameter to have the · same problems. Tree trunks are simply transmission barriers. Fauquier CountY is approximately 600 square miles. What is the probability that someone traveling on the ground will have some trees and leaves in between themselves and any of the towers? Pretty high. Oh, and modem buildings framed with steel are also barriers, scatterers and attenuators to 800 MHz-spectrum transmissions. So why did anyone make 800 MHz systems in the first place? Because the FCC had massive bandw~'dth in that frequency range to assign, and this was necessary for massive numbers of celhdar telephones. Back to the present. Well, the new proposal would put at least five 350' towers (that's right, three hundred and fifty feet tall), on the tallest available (read that: most visible) topography: Cobbler Mountain, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Bull Run Mountain. These sites are all pristine environmental areas without any development. Towers would necessitate clearing acres of trees from the tops of the mountains for access and guy wires. The towers would have bright blinking lights all day and all night. Yuk!. But, maybe we need to do this for Public Safety. The best way to get the scattering and attenuation problem reduced is to have a very 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 5 of 7 high 'look angle." This is the angle of the path from the receiver to the transmitter tower. It is high- so the signal won't be going through the foliage, unless, of course, one is down in a valley, in which case transmission from relatively high-power towers.is possible, but transmission by a low power:limited transmitter, such as is necessarily used by someone holding equipment next to his head, is virtually impossible. This is called the "talk-back" problem. The policeman on the ground can hear the tower, but the tower can't hear The policeman. To overcome the talk-back problem, 800 MHz systems need tremendously tall towers and high sensitivity. The best solution is both high towers and a lot of them. This is exactly what Fairfax County has found out. Their new system has eight very tall towers. However, Fairfax County is 40% smaller'than Fauquier, substantially less hilly and less wooded. Prince William county's 800MHz system proposal is for. eight towers, and Prince William county is half the size of Fauquier, and is again 'flatter with fewer trees. Does anyone who has looked at this problem believe that the future for Fauquier County is not many, many more than the five prop'osed very tall towers? Not really. Doesn't Fauquier need the new technology because the old transmitter systems are very unreliable, hopelessly obsolete and unrepairable? Not. All high-power transmission systems are composed of vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes get people to the moon and back, are used for daily defense communications, all airport traffic control systems, and all commercial television broadcasting uses vacuum tube-based systems. How often is any television channel unavailable. All of these organizations can buy whatever they want, and they are alt very serious about communications. They all need performance and reliability. They use vacuum-tubes for transmitters. Why? Solid-state systems are more sensitive to grounding, lightning, and radiation from adjacent equipment. Vacuum tubes are enormously more resistant to nearby transmitters, ground faults, and environmental damage. And, let's not forget the real reason for going solid-state: manufacturing cost. Manufacturing cost is completely unrelated to either reliability or performance. However, solid-state transmitter technology has a few problems that the tube technology doesn't: first, there are a whole lot more parts. About a hundred times more components in a typical digital than in the old tube-type radio systems. Are the solid-state components more reliable than the 'tubes? Nope. And, the second issue is even more significant: tubes fail slowly over time. They drift and get noisier. They get less efficient. With minimal monitoring, it is not difficult to tell when a tube is going south, so that with the tube-type systems, a regular calibration and maintenance program will keep these systems running indefinitely. So why does the Sheriffs Department experience so many problems with the VHF system, while other similar organizations such as the Virginia State Police are happy with theirs? The current Public Safety radio system in Fauquier County simply has not been adequately maintained. On the other hand, solid-state components simply faiL Without warning. Anyone who owns a personal computer knows this. And, there are 100 times more of them. Does http ://www. fauquiernews.com/083101 issue .btm 1 }/8/01 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginia Piedmont Page 6 ot'7 lvmtm-ma m' Ul~ smgte omcter s~rwcc provtu~' Jor Ul~ pt-opos~u nuw system rutow uns as well? They must, as.it costs Fauquier County $40,000 a year now for a maintenance contract for the VHF system, but the annual budget for the new 800 MHz system with five towers is $450,000. If it's so much more reliable and the technology is so much improved, why does it cost so much more to fix? And, speaking of fixing things, why is the current Sheriff so reluctant to repair and upgrade the current system? Reading service accounts of the transmitter sites, it is extremely clear that the current repair vendor has had no oversight: transmitters are incorrectly grounded and inadequately protected from the elements, repair procedures were neither specified nor mandated, there is no tracking procedure for equipment failure or calibration, and there was no single person or entity responsible for the performance or purview of this vendor. Why would anyone assume that this service vendor will perform better with the new equipment than the old, given the same lack of review and management? Having worked with this type of equipment for decades, we are astonished that the current system works at all. Under. similar conditions of malign neglect, a solid-state system would simply cease to fitnction, as opposed to continuing to function, although somewhat badly. If the issue is really Public Safety right now, isn't some better service right now better than no service? [Click hereto view editor's inspection notes on the Sheriffs equipment in 1998.] And, if the issue is really Public Safety, why isn't the current system being upgraded for the minimum interim two years before any new system would go on-line? For about $70,000, two outlying transmitters/receivers could be affixed to existing towers, enormously improving reception and transmission throughout the county. For considerably less than $50,000, we estimate that the current two transmitter sites could be cleaned, repaired, calibrated, and just generally restored to the original, good working, order. This doubles the capability of the old system and makes it work for less than one-tenth of the 'cost of the proposed new system. The only reason we can see for the reluctance of the Sheriffs office to fix the current system is that it would prove that the new system is unnecessary. Even if there were no questions about the proposed new system, common sense wouM dictate that the above measures be taken as, in the best case, it will be at least two years before the new system could be installed and licensed. Requiring that the 800 MHz system be purchased in the fall of this year, for delivery in 2002, without the assurance that the FCC will ever license the system seems ill-advised by any standard. The estimated cost of the new system has doubled in the last two years, when prices for all other digital technology are falling, and it will be another eighteen months before it is delivered to Fauquier County. The experience of neighboring areas with the new 800 MHz systems is far from uniformly encouraging. Unless everyone agrees to cut down all of the trees and level all of the mountains, the physical problems inherent in high frequency transmission systems is not likely to change. And, the economics of "today is never a good day to buy a computer" is also not likely to change for the foreseeable future. Why is Fauquier County buying this 800 MHz Radio Systems in the Virginifi Piedmont Page 7 of 7 system now? Or at all? (Return to FauquierNews Front Page) httl~ ://www.fauquiemews.com/083101 issue.htm ! 1/8/01 The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 1 of 6 A Message to Fauquier County's Citizens This message is regrettably long but it addresses a matter immediately affecting your taxes and your safety. What the Supervisors Did On June 18, 2001 Supervisors McCamy, Graham and Weeks voted to enter negotiations NOW with Motorola for a contract to build the most expensive Government project in the County's history: an 800MHz digital tmnked simulcast radio system. Only the new high school was more expensive. Supervisors Atherton and Winklemarm voted against. Some Definitions Let me explain some technical terms: "800MHz" and "150MHz VHF" refer to the frequency band used in a radio system. A "trunked" radio system selects by computer (subject to breakdown) an available frequency for a transmitter and signals the appropriate receiver over a "control" frequency which frequency the voice message will be on. This technology is needed to maximize frequency use in systems choked with message traffic when additional frequencies are not available. A "Conventional" system requires a person to use an assigned frequency or select by a switch among alternate frequencies his radio can use. The conventional system is straightforward and reliable with fewer points of failure. A system can use "digital" or "analog" modulation of signals on its frequencies. A "simulcast" system broadcasts the same signal simultaneously from several transmitters on the same frequency to cover a large area when there are insufficient frequencies available to give each sub-area its own frequency. Buying a System They Couldn't License After two years of licensing efforts the County doesn't have an 800 MHz license to operate in more than a small area around View Tree Mountain. The County had maintained that it would need only four main transmitters to cover 660 square miles. Prince William County realistically knew it would require 8 towers to cover their County which is half our size. The minimally sufficient system submitted for licensing in 1999 specified four base transmitters with a combined Effective Radiated Power (ERP) output of 2200 watts to cover 660 square miles. It specified 22 transmitters at firehouses at 140 watts (ERP) each. ~'he County couldn't get them licensed. It could only license one base transmitter with drastically reduced output (350 watts ERP) and a number of mobile radios. That won't give the County more than a small fraction of the coverage it has now. The poor coverage of the the existing radio system was the prime reason the County repeatedly stated for needing a replacement system. While 800MHz licenses are very difficult to obtain, the County already has licenses for 26 VHF frequencies and that band gives excellent coverage. http ://www. fauquiernews.com/081001 issue.htm 11/8/01 The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 2 of 6 Future Licensing Harder to Get It is extremely dangerous for the County to obligate taxpayers to pay huge unknown costs for re- engineering and licensing a minimal 800 MHz radio system that made little licensing progress in two years of effort. It won't be easier the second and third time around. Region 20 Plan Review Committee has announced that it will impose stricter standards in this' area than required by the National 800MHz plan- necessitating numerous transmitting towers around the borders of counties with lower power outputs and down-tilted and inward-directed antennas to minimize regional interference. That adds up to great delays and huge expense. (Click here to see Region 20's letter.) The Scenic Ruin of Fauquier County If the Supervisors pursue the buildout of an 800MHz radio system they will destroy the environment around mountains such as Rattlesnake, Cobbler, and Bull Run through the building of all-season roads to their tops to accommodate construction and service trucks. Mountaintops will be cleared to accept 350' strobe-lit towers, equipment buildings, parking lots, and a circle of supporting guywires. These mountaintop clear cuttings and towers will be visible for miles and destroy the historical landscapes that tourists, artists and scholars travel here to see. Imagine the.beautiful eastward views from Paris Mountain or Chester Gap with strobe-lit towers in the scene. Imagine the long view north from Flint Hill to the currently unspoiled region around Fiery Run and Rattlesnake Mountain. What about the view of a strobe-lit tower on Bull Run Mountain from the Town of Middleburg? Want that? A VHF 150MHz system can be deployed using current towers because it has better signal coverage. The Board Stopped Looking at the Sensible Choice with the June 18 vote the Board halted the County's contract with Booz-Allen & Hamilton, the second phase of which called for the issuance of a request for proposals to design a 150 MHz VHF radio system with Fauquier's 26 already-licensed VHF frequencies. This was a "penny wise and pound foolish" vote. 800 MHz System's Huge Costs The proposed Motorola 800 MHz County radio system is documefited to cost in excess of $12 million for the initial build, half a million dollars annually for the maintenance contract, and one hundred thousand dollars annually for managers' salaries. Huge unknown costs face Fauquier taxpayers to remedy likely "dead spots" and deal with cell transmitter interferenCe. The under specified "foot in the door" 800 MHz radio system will be a cash cow for consultants, engineers, and Motorola for decades as they try to get it to work properly. The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 3 of 6 Present System used below Capacity The Sheriff is demanding the 800 MHz radio System. The 'overwhelming majority of his personnel are not patrol officers. (Fauquier has one of the lowest ratios of patrol officers to administrative staff in the area.) The whole Department currently uses a single simplex frequency for communication between the dispatcher and officers. That one frequency is.used at only 10% of its capacity over a 24- hour period and only 24% of capacity during the busiest hour. They say they need 6 times the nUmber of frequencies they now have and they need trunking technology to handle all their radio traffic. What nonsense! Inflated Nurnbers used to get Spectrum The County was allocated 12 frequencies by the FCC-established Region 20 Plan Review Committee. Inflated figures for radio units were used to generate a case on paper for the County's excessive grab for spectrum. The County failed to submit an on-air radio traffic analysis to justify its need for valuable spectrum. It even expressly directed a consultant not to do one in 1997, when his proposal and contract required one. The County named municipalities as system participants on frequency applications without the agreement of those municipalities - to allow the County to claim a higher nUmber of users on the system and grab spectrum. 800MHz' Dangers to Public Safety Personnel Some Fauquier volunteers have been lobbying for an 800 MHz system but an 800 MHz system is not a friend of fire'or rescue personnel. A growing nUmber of news accounts from around the U.S. docUment the inferior coverage ability of 800 MHz systems for critical portable-to-portable fire ground communication in suburban and rural areas. These accounts are in addition to the scores of news accounts nationwide of police officers in peril because of unexpected "dead spots". Two officers have died in 800 MHz system "dead spots" in the U.S. in the last few years. A grand jury in Orange County California censured that County's 800 MHz system for dangerous coverage for firemen and pohcemen. Growing National Problem: Interference with 800MHz Systems A Fauquier 800 MHz system would be affected by the phenomenon, docUmented* since 1999, of Nextel and cellular transmitter interference making police and fire-rescue radios unusable in critical areas**. The FCC is so concerned with the growing problem of 800 MHz interference that it organized a project in April 2000 with the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials. APCO*** recently stated: "Frankly, there is little chance of a permanent long-term solution to this type of interference. Even when a "fix" is applied, it may only mean the problem moved to some other site...the commercial mobile radio industry is growing and continually adding new locations to their networks." Anyone reading current papers.in Fauquier knows that we face an avalanche of http ://www. fauquiernews.com/081001 issue.htm 11/8/01 The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 4 of 6 .proposals to place more cellular and Nextel-type towers and transmitters in the County- in the very areas where good public safety communication for policemen and firemen is critical. * Click here fo~ the March 12, 2001 story in USA Today. Use }?our 10i:0wser's BACK button to return here. ** Click here (until Sept.5) for the comp. rehensive study of interference by the Portland Oreggnian. Use your browser's BACK button to return here. *** Click here' for the APCO report in PDF format. Use your browsers BACK button to return here. Why Choose a Third-Rate Solution? Serious interference problems - risky fire ground coverage - and a documented inability to give good coverage in hilly, wooded terrain and.adverse weather conditions. You ask: "Who would want such a system?" The answer is: jurisdictions with overloaded radio channels who can't get freqUency licenses other than for 800 MHz. Those desperate governments settle' for a third-rate solution at an exorbitant price when they cannot get any more 40 MHz, 150 MHz, or UHF frequencies or can't put some of their radio traffic on mobile data terminals. Other government officials, even if they have no need for them, want the systems because they envy urban forces with the latest gadgetry. A Better Choice for Fauquier In 1997-98 citizens suggested replacing the current 39 MHz system with a new 150 MHz VHF conventional (non-tmnked) system. The FCC had recently restructured the VHF band and made many more frequencies available. County staff said there were no frequencies available. They refused to pay anyone to look for them. In 2000 a private Fauquier citizen hired several professionals and found and licensed for the County enough frequencies to build a fully-featured digital conventional 150MHz VHF radio system with excellent coverage and enough capacity for decades to come. With the licensing argument against a 150MHz system demolished, Supervisor Weeks and the Sheriff publicly demanded that the VHF proponents design and defend a digital trunked simulcast variety of VHF system.to compare with their 800 digital trunked simulcast proposal. Fauquier doesn't need trunking now or for decades: poor coverage and not message capacity was always the reason advanced for a replacement system. County staff had already been told in writing by their own expert in February 1998 that VHF trunking was practically impossible here -due to a high VHF "noise floor" .in the D.C. area. So the demand was suspect. The effort to design and analyze the "straw man" trunked VHF system consumed valuable research and planning time. Supervisors Graham, McCamy, and Weeks then effectively shut down the VHF option on June 18. Supervisors Atherton and Winkelmann opposed the shutdown. The Best Course Wasn't. Taken The Board on June 1'8 could have considered, but didn't consider, requesting proposals to furnish a digital 150MHz VHF conventional radio system. The team of engineers who worked on the trunked VHF system scenario had also advanced a conventional 150MHz VHF system as the proper choice. The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 5 of 6 Such a system would cost the County $8 million less than an 800MHz system. It would give fire and rescue personnel better coverage with far .fewer tower sites; and be more reliable under adverse weather, foliage, and terrain conditions. It would be easier to license, build and maintain. It would satisfy all the legitimate communications needs of every COunty agency including the Sheriff and all fire and rescue personnel for decades to come. It Would be completely interoperable, especially with the Town of Warrenton and the State Police. The independent consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton told the Supervisors there were no major obstacles tobuilding a 150MHz VHF conventional system to serve the entire County. The Supervisors did not choose what is "Good for Fauquie.r" Citizens: your Supervisors have negl. ected to seize an opportunity granted to few Counties. They were given a free gift of valuable spectrum - enough licensed frequencies to build a first-rate 150 MHz VHF radio system for all County agencies. They now have what Supervisor Weeks said October 27, 1997 was the thing needed t0 make VHF good for Fauquier: "The Orange County (150 VHF) system sounds good for Fauquier, but I understand that there are no frequencies available?" Citizens, the frequencies have been found and licensed. It's time to demand that the Supervisors do what's "good' for Fauquier." Stop the $12 Million Waste Citizens, tell the Supervisors you don't want your taxes wasted on a $12 million 800 MHz radio system prone to dead spots, interference, and degradation due to foliage, terrain and weather. Tell the Supervisors to Suspend the negotiations with Motorola to purchase the expensive, $12 million++ second-best solution to Fauquier's needs. Tell the Supervisors to seize the moment offered them by their licensed 150 MHz VHF frequencies to build a solid VHF radio system that won't impoverish taxpayers and endanger police, fire and rescue personnel. The Wise Choice Citizens, tell the Supervisors* to implement phase 2 of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton contract to work with the County and prospective equipment suppliers to design and construct a first-rate VHF Conventional radio system for Fauquier. Let the VHF Request For Proposals go to bid now and when the VHF bids are in let the Supervisors compare them with the bids they received for an 800 MHz system. They will see that the best system costs less. It can be built faster since the licenses are already in hand. Our fire, rescue and law enforcement will be spared the risks inherent in the 800 MHz boondoggle. *Click here to go to the Supervisors' Page containing email links, phone numbers and mailing addresses. Interested in Helping FauquierNews? http ://www. fauquiernews, corod081001 issue .htm 11/8/01 The $12 million 800MHz Mistake Page 6 of 6 After you tell the Supervisors what you want, consider helping FauquierNews uncover the facts behind the unprecedented behind-the-scenes push to get Fauquier to buy a 12 million dollar Motorola 800 MHz tmnked radio system. We encourage writers and researchers among you to help us in our work. There'are press clippings to be digested, County documents to be ferreted out, County employees to be interviewed, contacts to be made with State and Federal officials for information. We need "eyes and ears" to report to the taxp_ayers what is going on in their County. The paper press hasn't the resources to cover these stories in depth. Taxpayers are caught off-guard with no time to act; then they are "fleeced". Funds Needed to Get the Word Out We need funds to support Freedom of Information requests, copying costs, and legal follow-up. The Sheriffs radio advisor controls much of the document flow' for the 800 MHz radio program. He wants payment for answers to questions and access to documents of a type that other County departments share without charge. This is an effort to keep the public in the dark about matters affecting their taxes and their safety. Don't let it happen. Will You Spread the Word? We need citizens to host and attend neighborhood meetings to hear issue presentations from radio engineers, civic leaders, and other concerned citiZens. We need you to spread the word. Tell people to visit http://www. FauquierNews.com for the latest investigative news. Print out copies of FauquierNews and give them to your neighbors. If you can help, please let us know by email phone (540) 364-3671 or letter what you can do. Many thanks, James Borland Editor -FauquierNews.com Box 212 Broad Run, Virginia, 20137 _(Return to Front Page) Engineer says 150MHz Conventional is the Right Way Page Electronics Engineer says a 150 MHz VHF Conventional Radio System is the Right Way for Fauquier County Public Safety Users and Citizens. 800 MHz is too costly, less reliable. (See end of column for update on. County actions taken just before this column was written.) I follow the ong~)ing saga of 150 vs 800 with great interest and I believe the County needs to really evaluate what they use a radio system for. Do a traffic survey, ask how much do they actually interoperate with other counties, how many users do we have, etc. Trunking is a system you use when you have many users that use a lot of on-air-time and can't figure out which channel to be on. I suspect that most Fauquier County radio users can operate a conventional, radio just fine and don't need trunking to think for them. I favor 150 MHz myself, because it has much better coverage with fewer sites. I do not believe that Trunking at 150 or 800 is necessary for Fauquier County based on cost, the number of users and radio messages. Conventional radio re peater systems using crystal filtedng on the receiver antenna inputs, directional antennas, would be far more reliable, using 4 sites to provide the needed coverage and be interoperable with the Virginia State and Town of Warrenton. The COST WOULD BE MUCH MUCH LESS than trunking. Operation at 150 MHZ Conventional would allow Counties like CuLpeper and Rappahannock to actually participate in a Regional Radio System with Fauquier at an affordable price. The key here is dependability. It is NOT a good idea to co-locate 800 trunking systems at the same site with CELL PHONE infrastructure. The reason is a process called INTERMODULATION which causes random interference to 800 MHZ Public Safety systems. This is what the County is currently buying into: The 150 system requires 4 sites. The 800 system will require 12 - 14 sites ($1,000,000 each). The County will have to develop new sites where none currently exist. Site sharing might have been a good idea at one time, but now 4 to 5 Cellphone companies share the same tower sites and with most of the high' powered transmitters in use at once, the interference generated is tremendous and there most of the time. By the way, simulcast transmission requires precision timing at each site. Thanks to' GPS satellite system this can be.done. Also adding to the cost is microwave radio links to all sites. Costly leased lines could be used, but they are not as reliable as having your own microwave radio links. I think the most important thing for the County to keep paramount is RELIABILITY: you want the radio system or channel to be useful when and where you need it. Just the idea of going from 39 MHZ-Base-station-only operation up to a 150 MHZ Repeater operation is a great step up in technology and performance. The 800 MHZ Public Safety band was created, primarily because there were no more frequencies left to use on the 150 and 450 bands. Do 800 MHZ trunking systems work? Absolutely. But so do Conventional 150 MHZ Public Safety radio systems. The 800 MHZ Trunking systems are extremely costly to implement and do not cover well without a lot of tower sites. They are subject to interference from Cell-Phones sites, expensive to maintain, and if 5 Watt hand held radio use throughout the county is desired, that must be part of the original RFP. The idea of 150 MHZ radio not being "State-of-the-art" is bogus. All of the manufacturers produce and support modern 150 MHZ equipment with encryption.options. The State of Virginia is using and upgrading their radio system to VHF 150 MHZ equipment for state-wide coverage. None of this is experimental or risky. My vote is for ~ County-wide Affordable 150 MHZ Conventional Radio System using Voted httpi'//www, fauquiemews.com/070301 issue.btm 11/8/01 Engineer says 150MHz Conventional is the Right Way Page 2 of'~ Repeaters. This radio system would provide dependable radio service, keep maintenance cost Iow, use fewer tower sites and provide much better radio coverage and, last but not least, result in happy and safer Public Safety Radio Users. William Moneysmith (Electronics Engineer) Warrenton, Virginia The Fauquier Board of Supervisors on June 18 voted to suspend investigation of 150 MHz technology for a new County communications system, despite the fact that the County had been licensed in 2001 for 26 VHF frequencies by the FCC. The Board voted to negotiate with the two firms (Motorola and MA/COM) proposing an 800 MHz system. The Board shied away from VHF because a Board member had demanded that any system compared with 800 MHZ tmnked system he favored had to be a tnmked system. When he asked on June 18 whether any of the 800MHz vendors had built a VHF tmnked public safety system and they said "no", the Board went for 800MHz. One supervisor questioned the need for retaking because of the expense and the scant radio traffic in the County but apparently this was not enough to sway sufficient votes to continue the look at VHF and expand the enquiry into VHF conventional. Mr. Moneysmith raises again at this late' stage what has been raised repeatedly and never answered by any of the three County paid consultants: what is the level of public safety radio traffic in Fauquier County? Citizen radio engineers in the County who have recorded and measUred radio usage say that the level is way below what would justify any kind of tnmked system. For example, total radio traffic measUred on the Fire dispatch channel from 21 -28 August 1997 was 5.5 hoUrs of traffic in a 168 hoUr period or 3.27%. Sheriffs dispatch channel traffic from 29 August to 6 September 1997 was 19.95 hoUrs out of 192 hoUrs evaluated or 10.39% use. Even if the percentages were doubled to allow for some uncaptured talkback traffic the figures are still well below figures justifying trunking of a larger number of frequencies. A couple of conventional 800 or VHF channels would take care of the County rather than the ten trunked channels the County requested from Region 20 coordinators or the six channels that were awarded. The award was based on exaggerated quantities of radios rather than actual radio usage. The writer draws attention to a key defect in the planning for a system in Fauquier County: whereas talk-out coverage has been plotted there is no adequate projection of talk-back capability. The fireman may be able to hear a distant dispatcher booming out from a tower at 120 watts ERP but he may not be able to talk back to him with the 5 watts in his portable when he is in a dangerous situation. Mr. Moneysmith points out that another key weakness in the 800mhz planning may be the underestimation of the number of towers required to cover the 660 square miles of hilly and forested terrain within the County. Some engineers who have looked at the Countybelieve that the expected average coverage pattern of a system will be 50 square miles per receiver/transmitter site. They fear that interference from existing and future NEX2~EL and cellular telephone transmitters will require even more sites for mitigation. The County's~3~l~red engineers have variously advanced 4, 5, or 6 as the total number of tower sites required.) ' ~ -Editor Minutes of the May 3, 2000 Meeting COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD Page 1 of 2 .............. -:- ..... Mih'Utes of the May 3, 2000 Meeting The Communications Advisory Board COmmittee was convened in open and public session on May 3, '2000, at 5:30 PM, in the Sarpy County Board Meeting Room. The following members or alternates were present: Dan Hoins, Mark Wayne, John Stacey, John Kucer, Pat Archibald, Steve Betts, Guy Tramp, S.P. Benson, Tom Koksal, Louis Post, Rod Beuthe, Bo Addleman, Bill Roach. Absent: Paul Schultz, Travis Mayer, John Strawn. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Bellevue Leader and the Papillion Times. Copies of the Proofs of PubliCation are on file in the Sarpy County Clerk's Office. All proceedings were taken while the convened meeting was open to the attendance of the public. Stacey moved, seconded by Tramp, to approve the minutes of the March 1 2000 meeting. Motion passed unanimously.~ I Director Report: Dan peterson reported that an 800 MHz interference problem with the radios has been identified and occurs sporadically in the Western part of the County. Nothing can be done to cOrrect this situation. To enhance and expand coverage, tha- I'' Springfield'fii:'~' Paging'transmitter is being relocated to the Plattew · [rammg. ~Jvertime costs this year will exceed $107K. Dispatchers thank all departments that provided food during National Telecommunicator's Week in mid-April. Three dispatch .incidents were 'briefed in detail including facts and actions taken. The FY2001 Budget, provided in hardcopy to members on April 13th, was revie~ved. Members were given copies of the budget hearing schedule. No questions were posed, Benson moved, seconded by Wayne that the FY01 Budget be approved as submitted and that President Hoins sign a letter conveying same to the County board. Motion passed unanimously. Status of Printrak Project was briefed. Recent concerns expressed by Sheriff's Department relating to law enforcement involvement were acknowledged. Members were informed that Pdntrak project manager would be available to answer any questions or concerns at the Bellevue Distdct 4 Station, 0900 hours on May 17th. Director encouraged all user group members to attend and forward to him or John Prince a list of specific concerns to be provided to Printrak program manager. Concerning the implementation of the CAD/LRMS/FRMS, Director asked that questions or concerns-at any time-be forward to him or Prince to ensure all agencies are made aware. President Hoins offered no official report but stated that he felt the actions taken bY the Director concerning the briefed incidents were adequate. John Prince, Printrak Users' Group Subcommittee (PUGS) Chair, reported that the cooperation by all agencies for the project implementation was excellent. He provided copies of the latest Printrak project management schedule and program director's status 1 9/1 9/t~l 800 MHz radio systems -Firehouse. Com Forums Page 1 of 1 'oldE6man Firehouse Forum Veteran Posts: 26 From: Washington~ DC USA Registered: Feb 2001 Original Post [~ posted 06-15-2001 01:05 PM The failure of the 800 MHz radios in Delaware is a sobering reminder to any jurisdiction using or contemplating 800 MHz radios. Does your dept. use 800 MHz? What is good/bad about the system? 8-00 MHz radio systems -Firehouse. Com Forums Page 1 of 1 firedude3815 Junior Firehouse Forum Member Posts: 8 From: Upstate NY Registered: Mar 2001 posted 06-16-2001 10:34 PM We switched from Iow band to 800mhz a few years ago. Our county in its infinite Wisdom decided to skimp on towers and repeaters. They went with the Iow bid and we are now paying the price. There have been 2 new towers constructed and numerous repeaters set up since the initial bid. How do the radios work? Well, the batteries die on the portables faster than we can charge them and with very little warning (no battery meter like a cell phone). Yes we've been using battery conditioners. You can be talking on a portable and then just a few moments later absolutely nothing.! More than one guy has wanted to throw his portable into the street. The size of the portable could probably qualify it for a deadly weapon if used improperly (~ The mobile radios make a loud squelching noise when the radio is cold. We get over 190" of snow a year! Apparently the radio manufacturers thought they were visiting Florida. What are the good points? More channels and the ability to communicate across the county on a portable. We now have 9 fireground channels and a departmental operations channel. Before this system we couldn't reach dispatch on a 'portable. Bad points? Radios are difficult to use if not trained properly. Not user friendly in a hazardous environment. Small buttons make it difficult to change channels. You have to wait for the beep before you can talk. That's assuming you can hear it! Your message may not have been transmitted. Nov/we do have the ability to use a conventional channel for interior ops but it doesn't reach dispatch. So as you can see, ! haven't been sold on the benefits of the 800mhz system. However, in our situation the powers that be tried to save money. Well, if you buy crap you get crap (~) If your thinking about an 800mhz system do your research and don't let politicians make your job anymore dangerous than it has to be. Stay safe out there! 800 MHz radio systems -Firehouse. Com Forums Page 1 of 1 PFDE4 Junior Firehouse Forum Member Posts: 5 From: Portland,Maine,USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 06-18-2001 10:22 PM We've had alot of problems with our 800mhz system. They say they are working on a fix but its been over a year or two. 100+ letters have been written, or so T have been told. ! heard the last meeting in which the radio problem was mentioned, that the people responsible were notified of the manslaughter laws and their liability 800 MHz radio systems -Firehouse. Com Forums Page 1 of 1 SkipDCFD/PG34B Junior Firehouse Forum Mem Der Posts: 2 From: District of Columbia Fire Dept. Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-17-2001 07:52 PM ! have only recently gotten involved with 800MHz Radios Systems and must say that ! am not yet impressed. As with many of the tools we use in the fire service, it appears that how you spec a project has a direct effect on how the final product works. 800Mhz systems were explained to me in very simple terms. Digital Trunked systems, such as those in use in Delaware and Washington, DC, are much like the digital telephones everyone carries with them these days. In order for those phones to work reliably, there has to be a large number of transmission and repeater sites around. If these systems were set up like' our FD radio systems then nobody's cell phone would work.well and we would all be pissed. Chicago, TII briefly had a 800Mhz system, but returned to their old VHF system, after firefighter's trapped in a basement could not reach the alarm office to summoo help. ! think that the recent events in NYC, Delaware, and WDC have shown us that the system is no where near perfect and is a significant safety issue. Public Safety Interference Task Force In April this year, APCO attended a meeting hosted by the FCC in Washington, D.C. regarding the public safety 800 MHz system interference issue. Along with APCO, Nextel and Motorola attended. Nextel had been identified specifically as a party involved in many of the interference issues. Motorola attended as manufacturer of the equipment Nextel uses. This meeting was intended to bring the representatives of the affected parties together in an attempt to identify the scope of the problem. Each party attending provided an overview of the problem from its perspective. The FCC requested the attendees Create a task force to further address this issue. The FCC specifically asked the task force to operate independently of the FCC but did assign an FCC liaison to monitor the progress. The mission of the task force was to fully identify the scope of the problem, the actual parties and mechanisms behind the interference, and ultimately provide a workable solution to dealing with the interference. Primary contact individuals for the task force are: Bob McNamara Nextel (703)-433-4222 Jeanine Poltronieri Motorola (202)-371-6896 (task force designated coordinator) Glen Nash APCO (916)-657-9495 Jeanne Kowalski FCC liaison (202)-418-1897 More than one specific technical mechanism was identified as the cause behind the interference from preliminary data provided during the meeting. However, virtually all modes of interference could be tracked to the different design modes of commercial systems and public safety systems. Briefly, public safety systems are designed to maximize coverage from a centrally located base station using the maximum technical capabilities of equipment. This is defined as "noise limited" design. Mobiles operate close to their practical design threshold, in this case, close to their maximum receive sensitivity in the extremes of their coverage area. On the other hand, commercial systems are designed to hand-off mobiles well before they approach a threshold signal level. And system designers purposefully ~place base station transmitters in relative close proximity of strong signal overlap to ensure continuous coverage for a moving mobile.. This is called "interference limited" inasmuch as the mobile travels until it encounters a stronger signal as the mobile enters a stronger signal of an adjoining site. 'This also allows for the installation of many small transmitter sites or cells. Economically, the commercial provider can increase the frequency reuse providing greatly increased capacity for areas of high access demand by the public. ~k¢_aLp_u_b_lic s_af_e.~gc~a~t.e.~, s~oi~z&i_.ts _r~a4~g~_~g~t,~ay not be near an area that is critical for mobile contact. Usually such areas receive a http ://www.apcointl.org/afc/800Mhzinterfereupdate.htm 12/5/01 Public Safety 800 MHz System Interference Update Page 2 of 5 signal level well within normally acceptable design criteria. Ifa commercial provider places a station in these areas of low, but usable signal, very often the addition of the commercial, transmitter to the overall radio frequency environment is just enough to mask the intended public safety signal. The industry trend for commercial radio providers is to increase capacity and coverage by placing more and more transmitters in areas that.coincide with high concentrations of general population. Quite often these are the very same locations that are becoming critical for public safety to provide reliable coverag% The conflict:is evident and the trend will not alter in the foreseeable future. The problem is not limited to Nextel operations. Many other commercial mobile 'radio operationg can also interfere in this same general manner. This inclUdes other cell phone operations as well as dispatch:type operations. It happens that Nextel's choice of technology is a'digital modulation technique that can be more harmful than older analog technologies, but even older technologies are not immune from causing these problems. More recently, APCO, represented by Glen Nash, first vice president elect; and Ron Haraseth, director of AFC, visited with CTIA (Commercial Telecommunications Industry Association) representatives in Washington, D.C., to further discuss the direction of efforts. Concurrently, Motorola and APCO have developed information-gathering tools in the form surveys to better identify the agencies receiving interference and determine the exact interference mechanism for each. ~3~'~-C~0~ has created an online reporting form located on the APCO Web site. \,Kesponse has been good, but we are sure many more affected agencies have not reported. Many agencies may be experiencing intermittent interference from commercial sources and may be unaware of the cause. APCO will be compiling this information internally to use in an information campaign that will assist agencies experiencing problems in determining how to identify this type of interference. Motorola has also created an Excel spreadsheet that can be used to quantify the interference in greater detail, which will help pinpoint the exact cause and potential solutions. APCO has made this spreadsheet available on its Web site as well. Identifying the scope and severity of the problem is only the first step in our efforts. This does not prevent nor assuage the problem. Means of reporting 'the problem must follow once the symptoms and mechanism are identified. Progressing further requires a system to collect, monitor and track each specific instance of interference. At some point in this process, the parties involved in the interference will be brought together, and both will be required to report progress on solutions. Frankly, there is little chance of a permanent long-term solution to this type of interference. Even when a "fix" is applied, it may only mean the problem moved to some other site (moving a specific commercial frequency to another site). Also, the commercial mobile radio industry is growing and contim~ally adding new locations to their networks. This includes chan~in~ fretluencv mixes at other htt_v://www.al3cointl.9_Eg~9[8OOMhzinte~-e-e t)da : t _, _ _. ~ Pubhc Safety 800 MHz System Interference Update Page 3 of 3 sites creating a dynamic problem. The information a~nd~contacts r~ade through a monitoring process may assist the commercial providers in designing systems that will not interfere as often. It will most certainly assist public safety agencies to quickly identify the problem and obtain faster resolutions. If we cannot entirely eliminate the problem, at [east we should be able to help provide a quicker resolution when interference is encountered. 800 MHz Public Safety/Commercial (Cellular) System Interference Questionnaire Page 1 of 3 800 MHz Public Safety/Commercial (Cellular) System Interference Questionnaire Members of the public safety, commercial services industry, and manufacturers formed a joint task force to identify the scope and nature of the growing trend of interference caused by localized placement of commercial service transmitters. The problem has been associated with commercial ESMR operations, but has also been identified with cellular operations as well. It has been shown that several forms of cellular type operations are causing "holes" in the normal coverage patterns of existing public safety radio systems. If your public safety radio system or one that you are familiar with is experiencing. such a problem, APCO is interested in your input. There is an online questionnaire following this text. The information gathered will help determine the scope, location, and severity of the problem. The Task Force will use this information in an effort to help identify the problem where it exists and provide solutions and preventative measures where possible. For direct information, contact APCO via Email at 800int@apco911 .org; by phone at 1-888-APCO911; or FAX (904)322-2502. For a PDF version (6KB) Click here. The Commercial/Public Safety Interference Task Force is now collecting more detailed technical information where possible. To accomplish this in an order format, the Task Force has created the following EXCEL format spreadsheet which may be downl0ded. The Task Force will be reporting back to the FCC in the short 'term on HOW we could gather more definitive data about the problem and in the long term to actually collect that data---perhaps to. develop a clear understanding of what causes the problem and what should be done to prevent it from occurring in the future. The Task Force seeks your assistance in helping with the data collection aspects of this project. Please look at the attached "RePort Form" (Excel spreadsheet) and provide as much data as might be available on the incidents that have affected your system. Please forward completed reports to APCO HQ at 800int@apco911 .org, or FAX (904)322-2502. Thank you for your assistance, Glen Nash President-Elect, APCO-International htt~ ://www.aocointl.ore/afc/8OOinterfere.htm 12/7/01 800 MHz Public Safety/Commercial (Cellular) System Interference QuestionnairePage 2 of 3 (916) 657-9454 gnash@teleCom.dgs.ca.gov Detailed interference report - Excel spread sheet Public Safety - Cellular Interference Questionnaire Location City: County: state: ! I Agency Name: Type of service (police, fire, EMS, public works - list all): Service coverage (city, county, state, square miles, etc.): t' Population estimate of Service Area: Is the interference Annoying or Dangerously Harmful: O Yes O No Type of Public Safety System (conventional, trunked, analog,digital, voice, MDT, etc.): Band: [] 806-821 [] 806-824 [] 821-824 [] 896-901 Identified (or potential) interference source: [] Other Has interference been reported to: [] APCO [] FCC [] Commercial Provider Has the interference been resolved: o Yes o No If so, how was this accomplished: 800 MHz Public Safety/(~ommercial (Cellular) System Interference Questionnaire Page 3 of 3 Descriptive Narrative: Technical Contact Name: Technical Contact Title: Agency: Phone: E-mail: All Material ©2000 APCO International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. For information contact apco~,apco911 .org For Web Site questions contact webmaster~apco911.org AVOIDING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND COMMERCIAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AT $00 MHZ A BEST PRACTICES GUIDE r Note: This Guide was compiled by a working group of subject matter experts from the following organizations: the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials- International, Inc., the Cellular Telecommunications .& Internet Association, Motorola, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc. and the Publlc Safety Wireless Network. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the many individuals in these organizations who provided their time and expertise to develop this document. This document may be reproduced without permission. Production costs funded by Motorola, Inc., and Nextel Communications, Inc. ~Version 1 Printed December, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION In April 2000, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") brought together representatives of commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") providers and public safety communications officers to discuss the problem of interference between commemial mobile and public safety radio networks. The FCC stated that it had received an increased number of reports of interference to public safety radio networks in the 800 MHz band apparently resulting from the operations of nearby CMRS systems,-even though all providers were operating within the parameters of their FCC licenses. The FCC noted .that anecdotal accounts appeared to correlate the increased interference with the recent expansion of 800 MHz CMRS systems. - particularly enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") systems and cellular networks - using digital technology and employing more intensive frequency reuse to serve an expanding customer base. It concluded, however, that additional facts and analyses would be needed to conclusively establish the causes of this interference and ~o identify potential remedies. The FCC encouraged the meeting participants to develop more definitive information as to the scope and severity of CMRS/public safety interference and to recommend mitigation techniques and solutions. It emphasized that all parties affected by this phenomena -- both commercial and public safety -- must work together and must share responsibility for identifying the causes of such interference, identifying mitigation alternatives, and developing joint planning and technical sOlutions for preventing interference. Accordingly, a number of participants agreed to form a working group to accomplish-the FCC's charge. The group includes Motorola, Inc. ('SMotorola'), a manufacturer of both commercial and public safety radio systems; the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. ("APCO"); and Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel"), an SMR provider in the 800 MHz band. The Cellular Telecommunications & Intemet Association ("CTIA") also agreed to participate in the working group to represent its cellular' and SMR membership as did the Public Safety Wireless Network ("PSWN") representing local, state, and federal government public safety users. These organizations have pooled their knowledge, experience and expertise to develop this "Best Practices Guide" (the ."Guide") for parties experiencing commercial/public safety interference.! The Guide provides a broad overview of practices that can be used to identify and alleviate interference between public safety systems and commercial systems. It is intended to improve the ability of both public safety providers and' CMRS carriers to identify the radio frequency CRF') conditions in which public safety radio systems are likely to experience interference from FCC-compliant CMRS operations.2 The Guide describes the types and causes of such interference. It then provides information that ~ In addition, APCO has placed on its web site a questionnaire for its members to report incidences of interference to assist in identifying causal conditions and remedial actions. 2 Public safety system out-of-band emissions also have the potential to interfere with CMRS operations. may enable the affected parties to reduce or even eliminate such interference. It also offers guidance for future system deployments that can prevent such interference through frequency planning, collocation or strategic location of public safety and CMRS base stations, system design improvements for either CMRS or public safety networks or both, equipment upgrades, frequ..e~__c..y_.s_wa_jfs and, if necessary, FCC nde changes or waivers. The developers of this Guide intend that it be used to help prevent or mitigate interference to' public safety communications systems that provide critical safety-of-life communications services. The developers believe that the information presented herein will facilitate cooperation by public safety and CMRS operators throughout the country · to prevent harmful interference between such spectrum uses. References for more detailed technical information and points of contact are provided at the end of the document. II. 'BACKGROUND - 800 MHz BAND HISTORY The 800 MHz spectmm band was fa-st made available by gte FCC for land'mobile communications services in 1974 when it was reallocated from TV Channels 70 to 83 for use by public safety communications systems, private two-way radio, SMR, and cellular systems. As Figure 1 indicates, the FCC allocated 70 channels for public safety mobile communications systems between 809.9625-815.9875/854.9625-860.9875 MHz. 'These channels are interleaved with 50 channels allocated for private internal-use Business systems and 50 channels for Industrial/Land Transportation private internal-use systems. Some of the public safety channels are also adjacent to commercial SMR channels and some of the Business and Industrial/Land Transportation channels have been converted to SMR use during the past decade. Subsequently, in 1986, the FCC allocated an additional six MHz of spectmm (821.0-824.0 ~ paired with 866.0-869.0 MHz) for exclusive use by public safety agencies. These channels were allocated for interoperable public safety systems developed through regional planning programs involving both intm- and inter-region fiv, quency coordination efforts. Additionally, some public safety communications systems have been licensed in the 800 MHz General Category frequencies (806-810/851- 854 MHz). Given the then-current state of 800 MHz technology, in which all systems employed similar analog high power, high site system architecture, the FCC had no reason to expect that two-way systems allocated for these different uses would be in any way incompatible and might cause interference to each other. When public safety radio systems initiated 800 MHz service, the FCC had not yet adopted service roles - much less licensed -- cellular mobile radio systems and 800 MHz SMR systems were in their infancy. In short, when the allocations illustrated in Figure 1 were promulgated, neither the FCC, the wireless industry, nor the public safety commum'cations community could have anticipated the revolutionary changes in mobile communications technology that would occur during the 1990s, nor the explosive demand for commercial communications services and increased need for additional public safety communications capacity and capabilities. Figure 1: FCC Spectrum Allocation in the 800 MHz Band FCC Spectrum Allocation of 800 MHz Band Up-Link -SMR {80 channels)* I [] - Business (50 channels)* I [] - Industrial (IL'r) (50 channels)* [] -Public Safeb/(70 channels)' Cellular A &ad Down-Link Extended Public Safety ~"* A Band Sameas Extended Up-link above' *. AIInt-~tinn fnr I IR ?nnR (ditf~.r~nt =~lnnn Mnxi~'~n :and ~nnrlinn hr~rrl~.r rnninn.~ The advent of cellular mobile communications technology, in 'which frequencies are intensively reused throughout a system's service area through the constmction of multiple, low-power base stations, has enabled the 800 MHz spectmm to be used far more efficiently than ever before to provide value-enhanced services to millions of Americans. Advances in this technology, including the advent of digital communications techniques, have greatly expanded the capacity of cellular and similar frequency-reuse architecture SMR networks thereby malting mobile communications affordable and convenient for both businesses and consumers. This has led to explosive den'tand for cellular and similar commercial wireless services at 800 MHz. At the same time, demand has also increased for public safety communications to support additional mission critical services. This, in mm, has resulted in accelerated deployments to accommodate more users, with more intensive use of the 800 MHz radio spectmm by public safety communications networks. These deployments of both public safety and commercial wireless systems in recent years have had some unforeseen consequences. Under certain circumstances the mix of public safety and commercial systcnns on neighboring or adjacent specman has resulted in overlapping radio emissions from mobile communications systems designed at different times and for dissimilar operating environments. Public safety radio systems designed for the frequency coordinated, less congested and less intensively used RF environments of ten and 15 years ago, for example, may not be capable of rejecting locally robust commercial Wansmissions on adjacent frequencies. S'anilarly, some digital commercial networks, while enabling more efficient spectrum use through division of bandwidth into time slots, may also increase the local noise floor above that in which older public safety equipment was intended to operate, resulting in disrupted communications capability. In addition, both public safety and commercial systems have migrated from systems that primarily use "mobile" in-vehicle devices to systems that increasingly use "portable", hand-held units, thus increasing the mobility of the units and the potential interference effects. The purpose of this document is to help operators identify these circumstances and to proactively as well as reactively obtain assistance in mitigating harmful interference. III. CONDITIONS EXIST IN WHICH INTERFERENCE CAN OCCUR BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL WIRELESS SYSTEMS Why do CMRS operations cause interference to public safety radio service in some circumstances, but not in others? The answer lies in c~ain differences in the design parameters of these systems, which, in certain circumstances, result in conditions conducive to interference. These differences stem from the fact that public safety and commercial wireless systems were developed over time to serve two distinctly different user groups, using system architectures intended to best serve each group. Public safety .systems have traditionally been designed to provide dispatch and coordinating communications to a comparatively small group of users (e.g., police, fire, rescue and medical) over a specified area of jurisdiction or responsibility. Public safety users, typically, are divided into operational/tactical groups of individuals who often have a need to roam throughout the political jurisdiction of the parent govemmental entity. Since all members of these operational/tactical groups need to participate in any given communication and since the individual members of the group may be at any location within the operating area, public safety systems are designed to provide radio coverage throughout a large area with little or no frequency reuse. Furthermore, public safety systems must be capable of supporting large increases in capacity resultant from emergency situations (disasters, civil emergencies, large-scale fire, etc.) that may occur at any time and at any place. Based on this, and the fact that public safety agencies typically have limited financial resources, most public safety radio systems use high antenna site base stations and little or no frequency reuse to cost-effectively cover as much area as possible with the fewest sites, thereby holding fixed infrastmctt~ costs to a minimum. This configuration can result in weaker signal strengths in areas distant (e.g., several miles) as opposed to areas closer to the base station. For example, the edge of the service area, other points distant from the base station, and various points within the service area where signals to and from the base station are blocked or otherwise attenuated may receive weaker signal strengths' than an area close to the base station or where a signal is not blocked. These weaker signal strengths are acceptable as long as the signal from the base station is sufficiei~tly strong to overcome the thermally generated electrical noise inherent'in the public-safety mobile receivers (and, indeed, in all receivers of any type). Systems designed in this fashion, in which the limiting factor is considered to be thermal noise, are considered to be noise4imited. In contrast, CMRS networks are nomaally designed to provide service to a large user base (i.e., the general public) in a given area. Additionally, the average amount of time the typical CMRS user is actually using the spectmm is much longer (because the typical telephone call lasts much longer than the typical public-safety dispatch call). Because the total mount of traffic generated by commercial users far exceeds the capacity of the available spectrum in the system's service area, the radio channels must be reused over and over again throughout the area. This, in mm, requires a CMRS operator to deploy large numbers of base stations throughout its service area with each base station's transmissions covering a very small area, e.g., a radius of only a few hundred feet to a few thousand feet. This "cellular" system architecture enables commercial carders to deploy, networks capable of serving thousands of subscribers using spectrum that previously supported only one call per channel at a time throughout a large service area. As a result, this system design methodology has become the backbone architecture of cellular, Personal-Communications Service ("PCS') and enhanced SMR systems throughout the country. At any given time, the signal from the desired CMRS base station to a mobile or portable unit is interfered with by signals from other cellular base stations on the same frequency. Careful system design by the CMRS operator minimizes, but does not eliminate, such interference. This interference, rather than thermal noise as in the case of public-safety radio systems, is the limiting factor on successful operation of a CMRS system. CMRS systems are therefore considered to be interferenee-limitedmther than noise- limited. Inherent in cellular-type architecture is the fact that base station transmissions fi:om a local cell site will be fairly strong at a given receiver location (in order to overcome interference from other CMRS stations on the same frequency farther away). Other receivers m the same location (e.g., pUblic-safety receivers) will be exposed to the same relatively strong signals, Particularly in the immediate vicinity of a CMRS base station. 'This is in contrast to the public ~fety s~ ~gp~a_l, which, particul._arJ7~_ in ama~._._~t,&nt from. th~.~_wa4as_ mitter 'site, is designed so that it ~~.tjv~e[y~..weak, as noted e_ar~er. When these two types ~'"~'§~'steii:ts are close both geographically and spectmlly (i.e., adjacem or near adjacent channels), the potential for ~nterference exists --.~ where the public ~.~!y,~gggJ~ weak due to base station distance or tgpogr_aphic !ea~~,e~t~closer comnlerClal base station's slgllal. }'ubltc satety handheld and ~may experience one ~'. ~e~ence effects described above when numerous commercial antenna sites in a given area (typically in a closely-spaced urban environments) are below 80 feet above ground level - thereby producing a particularly strong signal in the immediate street vicinity- and in fringe coverage/service areas where the strength of public safety transmissions is relatively weak. In such circumstances, public safety receivers may be overpowered in weak signal or "fi-inge" areas.by stronger nearby CMRS signals. This is manifested as interference m the public safety communications system. Interference to public safety radio transmissions in these circumstances falls into four major categories: intermodulation,~ receiver overload, transmitter sideband noise, and effects due to the transition from analog to digital modulation, as described below. A. Intermodulation Intermodulation occurs due to interaction (mixing) between two or more different cartier frequencies. This mixing can take place intemally in a transmitter or receiver or extemal to both devices. Tire interaction produces signals at all combinations of the. sums and differences of the carrier frequencies. For example, a portable receiver attempting to receive on the frequency 869 MHz could potentially receive intermodulation interference from cellular transmissions occumng at 870 MHz, 871 Mltz and 872 MHz (870+871- 872 = 869 MHz). As the number of transmitters at a site is increased (which CMRS carriers may do by employing additional frequencies to increase capacity), the probability of creating an "on- frequency intermodulation product" increases accordingly. As noted above, intermodulation can occur either in the transmitter, receiver, or external to both. However, receiver intermodulation, when it occurs, is typically the predominant effect. A portable receiver experiencing intermodulation interference loses sensitivity, when several strong signals mix in the from-end of the receiver, producing a strong intermodulation signal on or near the "receive" frequency. When this occurs, the recetver has a difficult time differentiating between the desired signal and the undesired intermodulation product, resulting in degraded communications capability. B. Receiver overload The first stage of a receiver is usually an amplifier. This device amplifies both the desired signal and any other signals close to the same frequency to a level that the rest of the receiver can use. If the signal or signals in the area are strong, they may overload this amplifier. The likelihood of this happening increases as the number of base stations 'in the area increases and as the signals from those stations become stronger (e.g., as the distance to the base station antenna decreases). Receiver overload .manifests in three ways: receiver blocking, local oscillator interference, and receiver "desense." Receiver blocking occurs when an extremely strong signal or signals blocks out reception of the desired signal. Local oscillator interference occurs when noise from the local oscillator mixes with a strong, nearby undesired signal.3 This causes the interferer to "mix" and backfill on the desired frequency, producing a noise like component. Receiver "desense" is interference produced by a close, strong 8 signal that reduces the gain of the amplifying stages of the receiver, thereby inhibiting the ability of the desired signal to be received properly. These effects are rare with modem receiver designs, as other effects are more likely to be manifested before tree overload occurs. Interference resulting from receiver overload can be reduced through frequency separation and geographic distance separation between the public safety and commercial operations. C. Transmitter Sideband Noise Sideband energy is produced by every transmitter, regardless of type, as a necessary product of the process of making it convey information (the modulation process). Modulating a transmitter with information (voice, data, etc.) causes it to produce energy on frequencies above and/or below the assigned carrier frequency. ~ FCC sets strict limits on how much energy can be produced at ~a~c'_~gs away ~l~.~,~e_~s!gnea carrier n'equency; tins set or nnuts ~s. usuany representea as a curve ~i3~s re~ to as~ ~ mas[:." It should be noted that m order to allow adequate modulation of the transmitter, the "FCC mask" provides limited attenuation of the transmitter sideband noise on the next, second, and third adjacent channels from the assigned channel (see 47 CFR 90.235(b)). When the desired signal is weak at a user's receiver and there are no intermodulafion products on or near the frequency of the desired signal, the user can still experience interference if the energy from the undesired transmitter's sidebands is as strong as .or stronger than the desired signal. This can occur even if the undesired transmitter is operating completely within the limits of the FCC mask. Sideband noise interference typically becomes predominant only when the desired signal is weak and no intermodulation products fall on or near the desired frequency. In other words, if there were no intermodulation interference, then transmitter sideband noise will most likely be the root cause of an interference problem. Sideband noise is an increasingly frequent factor for commercial/public safety interference as additional Iow power commercial stations are geographically deployed to meet customer demand for coverage and system capacity. In addition, the sideband noise performance of commercial transmitters often assumes that the commercial operator will be adjacent to its'own operations in the spectmm, and, therefore, will be able to manage internally its own sideband noise. The sideband characteristics of digital modulation technologies increasingly used in commercial systems contribute to this type of interference, as discussed below. D. Analog to Digital Transition Beginning 'around 1990, the wireless communications industry (both commercial and public-safety) began to shill fi:om using analog modulation to digital modulation techniques. Digital transmission systems typically have greater sideband noise emissions than analog systems. Thus, the potential exists for digital CMRS systems to cause interference to public safety systems designed to be protected only from analog sideband noise emissions generated by other systems. As noted earlier, many public safety communications systems were designed to be noise-limited; that is, they were designed with an expectation that them would be few nearby spectmm users and that internally- generated noise in the mobile receivers would be their limiting factor. Since analog transmission systems were used exclusively in the band at the time, these systems were designed on the basis that co-channel (on-frequency) interference would be the predominant interference mechanism, with preventing or controlling adjacent channel interference of any kind receiving only limited attention. Public safety systems are becoming "interference limited" in the contemporary RF environment, i.e., their operations are susceptible to interference resulting from the unanticipated mix of technologies and modulation schemes in adjacent 800 MHz spectmm. IV. OPERATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF INTERFERENCE The operational appearance of interference to a public safety system may manifest itself in various ways. All of the identified underlying technical causes discussed above tend to result in the loss of received signal by the mobile units. However, due to the location dependent nature of the interference, and the different kinds of technologies employed by public safety agencies, the actual interference may appear to be sporadic. The typically short duration of public safety transmissions further complicates identification. Interference to conventional operations is usually self apparent, since the mobile subscriber unit uses a dedicated frequency. Loss of coverage is readily apparent and it is often sWaighfforward to identify the specific frequency being interfered within a definite area of operation. Interference to mmked operations is more difficult to identify. The frequency experiencing the interference may be used in one of two ways. If the ~xluency in question is a control channel, the result will normally be mobile radios that are entirely incapable of operation within the zone of interference. Since the radios are unable to decode an assignment received on the control channel, they are not available to receive transmissions. If, on the other hand, the frequency happens to be one of the randomly assigned working or traffic channels, the effect of the interference will appear more randomly. Only mobile units randomly assigned to the "problem" channel will experience the interference, thus rendering a repeatable observation difficult. In these cases, the close cooperation of both public safety and commercial operators is critical to identifying, evaluating and taking steps to mitigate such interference. The next section provides guidance for addressing interference situations and predicting potential interference conditions. V. MINIMIZING THE PROBLEM: TECHNIQUES FOR BOTH EXISTING SYSTEMS AND NEW SYSTEMS · 10 While the magnitude of the incidents of interference between commercial wireless systems and public safety radio systems is undetermined, the number of reported cases has not been large relative to the number of public safety communications systems. Even so, the resolution of any instance of interference to a public safety system must receive the highest priority. This section of the Guide addresses alternative measures, which CMRS system operators and public safety communications system managers can take to (1) mitigate such interference in existing deployments; and (2) prevent such interference in new or future CMRS and/or public safety radio installations. A. Existing Systems When a public safety agency believes it is experiencing interference of the types described above, it should contact the CMRS carriers operating in the affected area. Attached hereto are contact lists to 'assist public safety network operators in reaching the general managers or local engineering personnel of these CMRS carders to initiate evaluation of the interference to identify whether it is resulting from adjacent channel or geographically proximate CMRS operations. The CMRS contributors to this Guide recognize that such interference can affect communications vital to police, fire, rescue and other safety of life services and will endeavor to give such reports their highest priority, and immediate attention. Public safety, communications officers 'should assist in this process by working with CMRS operators to help identify the geographic extent of interference, the type of interference and to expeditiously test mitigation t~hniques. If CMRS operations are determined to be the source of the reported interference, a number of measures are available to mitigate or eliminate interference in most cases, as described below. Some involve modifications or refinements of the CMRS operations; by addCtg m.~.r._~ p~~.~.~~.~.~..c!$~asin~ ~ower levels or ~g more interference- res~t..~ g~.~. ,h~.~.~,..~ld and ~__b_ile rece!~.~umB Asmmi~_g that b0~-----th~.h~i~..ub~9_.A~ety and ~C._MR_ _S s s~_~are ~oj2~ in compliance with their FCC !~censes an4~...the ~;~_~ml~.~es~e~parties should 'cooperate S;-~e-F~'~'~ie~-~t allocation ~p~,.~ffi~s. and~~es.s~&nn~s~a~.rF, f0r,~interference mitigation, taking into account the costs and b.e~n~e~ 0~r~g,~ actions. 1. System Modifications The most effective actions to address public safety interference will depend on the specifics of each particular situation. ~l~Cific~ f~~,~&~,~!.~ ~g~l~.~the involved ~ stations relative to the area in which p_ub.._.lic safety co~m~fiqns are maPa~.e~.a; me ne~gnt, power, ana omer operating parameters or me c~vm~ oase stalaon; ~s'~tance from that area to the public safety base station and its signal strength in the affected .area; the number of CMRS channels operating in the affected area and whether they are adjacent to the desired public safety channels; the size of the area in which public safety communications are impaired; and the operating specifications and 11 capabilities of the affected public safety handheld and mobile units. Depending on the factors or factors involved in a particular situation, CMRS and public safety agencies should cooperatively evaluate the interference-reducing effectiveness of the following actions, along with any additional burdens they may cause:' ,- ......... ,- Retune CMRS Channels Further Away From the Public Safety '"' Operator's Channels. Both cellular and enhanced SMR operators in a given iocation may be able to modify their channel deployment and/or channel reuse plans to increase the separation between CMRS and public safety channels in the affected area. A separation of 1.5 MHz or more between these channels has been effective in alleviating interference. · Modify CMRS Power Levels, Antenna Height and Antenna Characteristics. Reducing the Effective Radiated Power ("ERP") of the CMRS operations can reduce or eliminate public safety receiver Overload interference. In addition, increasing the height of the nearby CMRS antenna site, changing the antenna radiation pattern, employing tighter beam-width antennas, or more gain in conjunction with reduced transmitter power to maintain the same ERP, may reduce undesired signal levels by virtue of the local antenna pattern. It may also be possible to sectorize CMRS antennas away from the affected public safety facilities to reduce the cumulative RF energy in that direction emitted from an omni- directional antenna. · Assure Proper' Operation of Base Station Equipment. Poorly operating or degraded equipment may exacerbate interference. Both CMRS and public safety operators can check their base station equipment to ensure that it is operating within design guidelines. · Improve the Local. Sisal Strength of the Public Safety Communications System In some cases, the altematives described above may be less effective than desired in e'hminafing or sufficiently reducing interference. In such cases, the ~parties sh~uld~ev~.!lm_~.~ .irgl2r~o~-dr~.g~.~ [~g~a 'on and/or strength of public s~.a~..e~.._..s~._!ion transmissions ~,a!~.~arlv in the case ot dtstant single-site systems des~gn_.ed to ~emte in a low noise, modifical-~ons must be done with careful c~.dn~.~..fi_~ to ~e potenUal 2. Incorporating Filters Into CMRS Transmission Equipment 12 / As discussed previously, site sideband noise is an increasing contributor to interference in some public safety networks. If sideband noise is determined to be a potential issue, additional filtering of the CMRS transmitters to suppress these emissions can be effective in mitigating or reducing interference. Sideband noise has to be filtered out at the interfering source as it appears "on fi:equencf' to affected receivers. There are a variety of filters that CMRS operators can test as to their efficacy in a particular interference scenario. 3. Segregation of Public Safety and CNIRS'Spectrum Assignments Another alternative to mitigate interference in a particular case is to attempt to segregate or relocate public safety use away from commercial use in the 800 MHz band. The 800 MHz band continues to experience robust growth. Public safety organizations, commercial wireless carders and equipment manufacturers should consider whether segregating public safety and commercial channels would be useful, and seek FCC permission to "swap" or reassign channels. In some cases, such frequency swaps can be a '%yin/win" solution for both public safety and CMRS operators by enabling them to both mitigate interference and make the most efficient and effective use of their spectrum resources. While all of the mitigation measures described above can be effective in reducing interference to public safety operations, they will typically result in mb-optimal use of the licensed spectrum of either the public safety licensee, the CMRS operator, or both. Frequency swaps that enable each party to fully utilize its licensed channels serve the public interest by promoting spectrum efficiency and the widespread availability of both public safety communications and commercial wireless services. B. New or Expanded Systems 1. Advance Planning ~~F-qi""~"~/~s~*~~~"service in ~ ~a'already served by public safety communications systems, a CMRS provider is expanding the geographic coverage or user capacity 'of an existing CMRS system, or is adding or transifioning to a digital modulation technology. ~ applies whenever a new public safety_. _~r_aklij'_o__~em is syst~" l;'""~'"~~"Tai:' aard~nce r~.~ ~d~] coop~,,,tLo~n.a prevent 2 mmmatze CMRS carders introducing service, expanding coverage or making other major modifications should contact the local public safety agency to examine whether their plans potentially represent an interference risk. In particular, CMRS users of channels 13 that are adjacent to channels allocated for public safety use should ascertain whether such public safety channels are assigned for use in the same geographic area as their proposed CMRS operation. This information can be determined from the FCC's Part 90 database (add url), among other sources. For new or expanding public safety systems, the contact lists attached hereto provide a starting point to assist public safety network designers in contacting the local engineering personnel of CMRS carders in their area to begin examining which channels may potentially represent an interference risk. By assessing intermodulation potential, base station locations and design parameters, adjacent frequency deployments and ~lati-xT~-'~'gn~fi~s of each system at representative locations, the parties can identify where the probability of interference is greatest and plan around it This additional plamaing should minimize the number ~ ~ituations in providers also provides a means through which operators can collocate base station sites. This results in the signal strength of both public safety and CMRS transmission, being comparable in the vicinity of the site, thereby reducing the likelihood of interference. 2. Public Safety Equipment Should Be Suited to an Intensive RF Environment Another key method for alleviating potential interference is to minimize the susceptibility of receivers to interference, b~~.h~ ~_,~. purchasing new equipment_ 75 dB minimum is recommended. This can be relaxed somewhat, 70 dB, for systems designed for portable coverage inside large buildings. Additionally, public safety users should avoid using extemal antennas when operating portable devices in vehicles, especially when these portables have been designed to provide in-building coverage, as this will aggravate potential interference effects. 3. System Design Criteria In those instances in which public safety systems will operate in high noise levels within the local environment, interference to public safety operations can be minimized or prevented by increasing the signal strength of the desired signal levels above local noise levels. _P_u._...blic s~a_fety systems in urban and other intensive RF environments must be desi_g~_.e~d~_t_o_...._.a_~_.~.~.~X~3~' robustness than was required before the advent of multiple adjacent and n~by CMRS networks. System designs that pmduce'~fier ~)~iblic"~fet~"syst~"~signal-'strei~gth~i~vels throughout the service area will create a more robust system resistant to interference from CMRS systems operating in the area, as well as other interference sources (e.g., computing systems in buildings). For example, if a public safety radio system is being designed to provide in-building coverage, it may also provide more robust coverage on the streets and highways. 14 VI. FURTHER RESOURCES More information can be found at www.apco911.org including a sofrcopy of this. Best Practices Guide. Additional technical background can be found at: http://www.motorola.colffcgiss/NA/contact/Interference% 20Technical% 20Appendix.pdf VII. POINTS OF CONTACT Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) 351N. Williamson Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32114-1112 Phone: (904) 322-2500 E-mail: apco(~apco911.org Web address: www.apco911.org Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) Contact: Vice President for Industry Operations Phone: (202) 785-0081 FAX: (202) 887-1629 E-mail: indops~ctimorg Web site: www.wow-com.com Motorola, Inc. Contact: Customer Service Representative at the Motorola System Support Center Phone: (800)323-9949. Select Option 1 (operating 24 hours a day/7 days a week). Note: Callers with a maintenance contract should provide their System ID. All other callers should use a System ID INTFR to expedite muting to the appropriate division representative. This method of contact provides the quickest response time. FAX: (847)725-4073 E-mail: cms072~emailmot.com Nextel Communications, Inc. Contact: Senior.Engineer RF Operations Phone: (703) 433-8894 Fax:(703) 433-8484 E-mail: publicsafety~nextel, com 15 Public Safety Program Network (PSWN) Contact: PSWN Program Manager Phone: (800) 565-PSWN (7796) FAX: (703) 279-2035 E-maik hfonnation~pswn.gov Web address: www.pswn, gov 16 rage I oI z 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Licensing Changes Recently, the FCC granted an informal request certifying other public safety associations authority to coordinate 800 MHz public safety radio license applications. Prior to this change, APCO was the sole coordinator for 800 MHz Public Safety speCtrum. With this new option available to agencies licensing systems in the 800 MHz band, it is important that they understand'the role coordinators play in the licensing process. The role of the coordinator is to reCommend the most suitable frequency for an agency to minimize the potential for harmful interference. The FCC mandates that any new land mobile radio license, or any technical modification to an existing license must be processed by an FCC certified frequency coordinator. FCC certification alone does not guarantee that a coordinator is capable of providing quality service. APCO is the coordinator most experienced in handling 800 MHz public safety applications. APCO AFC has been an FCC certified frequency coordinator for public safety entities in the Part 90 Radio Services since 1986 and is synonymous with regional 800 MHz planning. APCO AFC maintains a paid professional staff of 17, including professional engineering personnel. APCO's staff has many years of experience coordinating 806-821 MHz applications nationwide, including the complex issues in Canadian Regions and the Mexican Border Areas. APCO's Canadian Task Force and Canadian Chapter have knowledge of the practices of Industry Canada and are involved in protecting shared spectrum. Our recently established APCO Project 39 is tasked with identifying and protecting public safety agencies from interference from commercial entities. APCO maintains an extensive network of Local Advisors who have been a part of the NPSPAC Regional Planning Committee (RPC) process from the beginning. These'Local Advisors have unparalleled knowledge of the 800 MHz frequency use on a state-by-state level along the U.S. Borders. In addition, APCO's automated frequency coordination system is equipped with precise data points that define the regional allocations for each of the Canadian Regions. APCO has served the public by accurately coordinating 800 MHz applications along the Canadian and Mexican Borders for more than 16 years. APCO continues to serve public safety agencies in. a host of other ways that may be transparent to the user. We support regulatory efforts to obtain new spectrum, and preserve access to existing spectrum. APCO resources were instrumental in establishing National Plan operations for the 821-824 MHz NPSPAC bands and continue to help maintain NPSPAC operations today. APCO is eager to continue serving.the public safety, community with its 800 MHz needs. The choice of frequency coordinator should not be made based on price http ://www.apcointl.org/afc/800_MHz_letter.htm 1/8/02 New Page I Page 2 of 2 alone. APCO has always been flexible with price for larger application packages and will continue to do so. In order to make certain that there is no disruption to the 800 MHz coordination process, APCO is prepared to meet or surpass any coordination fee offered by another coordinating agency. Regardless of cost, all agencies should closely examine the quality of the coordination received. We believe you will find no other coordinator capable of providing the quality and scope of licensing assistance available from APCO. If you have any questions concerning 800 MHz coordination or the AFC coordination program, please contact our office. Sincerely, Cheryl Harrer APCO AFC Deputy Director ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS- INTERNATIONAL, INC. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION MAJOR COUNTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL November 21, 2001 The Honorable Michael Powell Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554' Dear chairman Powell: Public safety agencies represented by the above-named organizations are facing rapidly increasing demands on their operations and communications systems, compounded by the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet, as the Commission is well-aware, public safety agencies in many areas lack sufficient radio spectrum and are often without effective interoperable radio communications. At the same time, existing public safety radio systems in the 800 MHz band are also increasingly facing interference from commercial mobile radio systems (CMRS) in the same band. Nextel Communications Inc. (Nextel) has proposed a substantial reallocation of the 800 MHz band in an effort to address some of these and other complex issues. The Nextel proposal would shift all 800 MHz public safety operations to a contiguous block of spectrum at 806- 816/851.-861, and all 800 MHz digital SMP,. operations to 816-824/861-869 MHz. The current interleaving of channels used for public safety and CMRS would be eliminated, and the potential for CMRS interference to public safety systems would be substantially reduced. Importantly, the plan would also yield an additional 10.5 MHz for public safety communications. However, the plan also requires all existing public safety operations in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band (the "NPSPAC" channels) to relocate to frequencies below 816/861 MHz. Nextel's proposal includes a substantial financial commitment intended to offset the cost of this relocation2 Finally, to accomplish the proposed reallocations, Nextel would relinquish licenses for 10 MHz of spectrum that it holds in portions of the 700, 800 and 900 MHz bands, in exchange for which Nextel would receive licenses for 10 MHz of spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service band for terrestrial commercial service. The technical details and other aspects of this proposal are complex, and many of its elements require further development and analysis. Implementing the proposal will also impose substantial, undetermined costs on some public safe.ty licensees, especially those now operating in the NPSPAC channels.. Nevertheless, we believe that the basic elements of this proposal, as set forth above, have the potential to substantially improve the quality and quantity of public safety communications. The proposal, therefore, should be given serious and expedited consideration by the Commission through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We emphasize, however, that our support for this or .any similar approach will be contingent upon adequate funds being put forward to cover all of the implementation costs impOsed on existing public safety licensees. It will be incumbent upon the cOmmercial entities who will benefit from this proposal to bear the full mount of the costs incurred. These costs are unknown at this time, and Should not be subject to an arbitrary aggregate ceiling. We stand ready to work with the Commission and the CMRS industry in addressing and resolving the difficult issues facing the 800 MHz band. The Nextel proposal is a major step in the right direction. Respectfully submitted, Glen Nash, President Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. 35l N. Williamson Blvd. Daytona Beach~ FL 32114 888-272-6911 Garry L. Briese, CAE Executive Director Intemational Association of Fire Chiefs 4025 Fair Ridge Drive Faiffax,. VA 22033 703-273-0911 William B. Berger, President International Association of Chiefs of Police 515 N. Washington St. Alexandria, VA 22314-2357 703-836-6767 Jemy Keller, Chairman Major Cities Chiefs Association c/o Las Vegas Metro Police Dept. 400 Stewart Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101 702-229-3231 2 November 21, 2001 Mr. Thomas J. Sugrue Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Eliminating CMRS-Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band and Allocating Additional Spectrum to Meet Critical Public Safety Communications Needs Dear Mr. Sugrue: Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel") hereby submits the attached White Paper, ~Promoting Public Safety Communications: Realigning the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio Band to Rectify Commercial Mobile Radio - Public Safety InterferenCe and Allocate Additional Spectrum to Meet Critical Public Safety Needs." The White Paper recommends that the Federal Communications Commission (the ~Commission") initiate expeditiously a rulemaking proceeding to accomplish two pressing public interest goals: (1) making additional spectrum available for public safety communications services; and (2) substantially reducing interference to public safety communications from the operations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (~CMRS") systems in the 800 MHz band. Nextel shares the 800 MHz band with Public Safety communications systems, Business/Industrial Land Transportation ("B/ILT") licensees, Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") operators and Cellular Radiotelephone (~cellular") systems. Cellular licensees occupy the upper.portion of the 800 MHz band directly adjacent to public safety communications systems. Nextel, other SMRs, B/ILT, and Public Safety systems are licensed in the 36 MHz of Land Mobile Radio spectrum at 800 MHz adjacent to the cellular licensees. Nextel is the leading commercial licensee in the Land Mobile Radio band with licenses for more than 18 MHz of this spectrum. Over the past two years, Nextel has worked with the public safety community to identify why CMRS operations are interfering with public safety communications systems in the 800 MHz band, even though all licensees are in compliance with the Commission's rules and the terms and conditions of their licenses. Typically, interference occurs in the immediate vicinity of CMRS base stations operated by either the cellular licensees or advanced SMRs using digital, cellular-like network architecture. Public safety communications operators in about 25 megropolitan areas have experienced this type of interference, often near multiple CMRS base stations. Interference can disrupt critical life safety communications with police officers, firefighters, rescue teams and other emergency response personnel, potentially putting them at risk as well as the public they serve. Mitigating these risks is essential and has become even more urgent in the aftermath'of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country. Last January, Nextel and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, Motorola, Inc., the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association and the Public Safety Wireless Network presented to the Commission a ~Best Practices Guide" that identified the causes of CMRS - public safety interference and presented both mitigation alternatives and prior coordination plans to prevent interference. As discussed therein, the fundamental cause of this interference is an 800 MHz spectrum allocation plan, initially adopted in 1974, that has failed to keep pace with the dynamic nature-of the wireless telecommunications marketplace. It results in the Commission authorizing public safety communications providers and CMRS licensees to operate essentially incompatible systems on mixed, interleaved and adjacent 800 MHz channels. The locally stronger transmissions of CMRS systems "overpower" less robust, distant public safety signals -- a signal strength disparity that under certain circumstances causes interference in the front end of public safety recefvers. Intermodulation is the dominant cause of interference, with wideband noise and receiver overload playing a secondary role. Nextel has devoted substantial resources to identifying the causes of CMRS - public safety interference and developing both immediate and long-term corrective measures. This White Paper urges the Commission to implement an effective, long-term solution: an 800 MHz spectrum realignment to relocate public safety and CMRS systems to peparate spectrum blocks, thereby eliminating the mixed licensing of incompatible system designs that is the underlying cause of CMRS - public safety interference. It would establish a 20 MHz spectrum block for public safety communications - more than http://wireless.fce.gov/releases/O 11121-1etter.txt 12/7/01 Page 2 ~f2 doubling the current public safety allocation of 9.5 MHz at 800 MHz -- and a separate 16 MHz spectrum block dedicated to advanced, frequency reuse digital SMR networks. The proposed public safety channel block would be adjacent to television channels 68 and 69, which have already been allocated for use by public safety communications systems, ultimately creating a near-contiguous 44 MHz channel block dedicated to public safety communications uses. B/tLT licensees currently operating on the new public safety block would become secondary and would be permitted to relocate to spectrum in the 700 MHz and 900 MHz bands on a voluntary first-come, first-served basis. To implement the proposed band plan, Nextet would swap 16 MHz of spectrum it currently holds in the 700, 800, and 900 MHz bands; 8 MHz of this spectrum is in the 800 MHz band and would be reallocated to the new public safety spectrum block, while the other 8 MHz of spectrum is in the 700 and 900 MHz bands and would be used to relocate B/ILT licensees and high site SMR licensees currently operating in the 800 MHz band. In exchange, the Commission would grant Nextel licenses for 6 MHz of replacement spectrum in the new digital SMR channel block at 800 MHz (contiguous to the 10 MHz already licensed to Nextel in this block), and 10 MHz of Unused contiguous spectrum reallocated for terrestrial commercial use in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (~MSS") band. No incumbent licensee would lose any spectrum, and public safety operators would obtain additional, critically needed spectrum for increased capacity, advanced services and enhanced interoperability. Nextel is willing to contribute up to $500 million to help fund the costs of relocating incumbent 800 MHz public safety systems in accordance with the realigned band plan. It would also fund its own significant relocation requirements. Nextel would provide these funds contingent upon: (1) the FCC's adoption of the proposed realignment plan by a Final Order; and (2) the assignment to Nextel of licenses for 6 MHz in the new 800 MHz digital SMR band (in addition to the licenses Nextel currently holds in that band) and for the 10 MHz, 2020/2025 - 2170/2175, from the MSS band in exchange for the 16 MHz of spectrum Nextel would surrender as part of the plan. The cellular operators, and all other CMRS licensees that will benefit from the proposed realignment, should contribute substantially to the costs of relocating public safety licensees. The White Paper proposal will help police, firefighters, and other public safety agencies meet the unprecedented challenges they now face in protecting our nation's security, while enhancing the spectral operating environment for public safety and CMRS licensees. The Commission should expeditiously commence a rulemaking Proceeding to advance these vital public interest measures. Respectfully submitted, NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2001 Edmund Halley Drive Enclosure Mr. Thomas J. Sugrue November 21, 2001 Page -3- Robert S. Foosaner Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer Lawrence R. Krevor Vice President - Government Affairs Reston, VA 20191 (703) 433-4141 rage I o122 PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS REALIGNING THE 800 M/{Z LAND MOBILE RADIO BAND TO RECTIFY COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO - PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE ~ ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO MEET CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS Nextel Communications, Inc. 2001 Edmund Halley Drive Reston, VA 20191 November 21, 200 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 A. The Problem 7 B. The Solution 7 C. Public Interest Benefits III. NEXTEL'S INTEREST IN THE REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL 9 IV. BACKGROUND 11 The Current 800 MHz Band Plan 11 CMRS-Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band Efforts to Address CMRS - Public Safety Interference in the 800 55{z Band 16 14 THE CAUSES OF CMRS - PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM 18 The'Mixed Licensing of Public Safety, Private and Commercial Systems Throughout the 800 MHz Band is the Fundamental Cause of CMRS - Public Safety Interference 800 MHz Realignment Will Create the Spectrum Allocations Necessary to Mitigate CMRS - Public Safety Interference23 The Public Safety Community Needs Additional Spectrum for Communications Services 25 VI. PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY BY REALIGNING THE 800 MHZ BD~ND MD ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO 19 http://wireless, fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_final.txt 12/7/01 Page 2 of 22, PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS 28 The Realignment Plan 28 Additional Measures To Prevent CMRS - Public Safety Interference 31 Using Mandatory Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators to Implement the 800 MHz Realignment 37 CMRS Licensees Should Fund the Bulk of Public Safety's Retuning Costs 39 Using Voluntary Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators for Realignment of B/ILT and Noise-Limited Traditional SMR Licensees 42 Implementation Timetable 46 VII. LEGAL AUTHORITY 48 A. Authority to Manda'te Incumbent Relocation 48 B. The Ashbacker Doctrine and Section 309(j) Are Not Implicated by the 800 MHz Realignment Plan 51 VIII. MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS 55 Effect on Pending MSS Rulemakings 55 Relocation of Incumbent Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Fixed Service Licensees in the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz Bands 56 IX. CONCLUSION 59 I. INTRODUCTION This White Paper recommends that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") expeditiously commence a rulemaking proceeding to correct the causes of interference between commercial wireless and public safety radio communications systems in the 800 MHz band. As part of this initiative, the Commission should allocate additional spectrum at 800 MHz for public safety communications systems vital to the safety of life 'and property and our nation's security. Specifically, the Commission should realign the 36 MHz of 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio spectrum, 806/824 - 851/869 MHz, to mitigate radio frequency ("RF") interference between Commercial Mobile Radio Systems ("CMRS") and Public Safety Radio Communications Systems and to double the amount of 800 MHz spectrum available for primary use by public safety communications systems. Since 1996, the FCC has been seeking solutions to the various communications problems faced by the public safety community, including inadequate spectrum access and barriers to interoperability. The Commission has acknowledged that public safety agencies have ~scarce available spectrum," particularly in large metropolitan areas, and recently received a petition reiterating public safety's critical need for additional spectrum to meet the communications challenges of this decade. Public safety providers need additional spectrum now to'enhance interoperability among police, fire, rescue and emergency management personnel, provide advanced video and data communications services, increase systems capacity for both life safety and public works uses, and improve communications reliability and redundancy. There is also a critical need to implement an effective, long-term solution to the increasing levels of CMRS - public interference in the 800 MHz band. The CMRS industry and the public safety community, along with the FCC staff, have worked together over the past two years to identify the causes of this interference. These efforts have determined that the fundamental cause of the problem is the increasingly incompatible mix of mobile communications licensees in the 800 MHz band. Mitigating CMRS - public safety interference requires, among other things, realigning the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio spectrum so that public safety and commercial services operate in separate contiguous spectrum blocks. To achieve these essential public interest objectives, the Commission should immediately initiate a rulemaking proceeding with the goal of adopting the necessary rule changes within six months. This realignment plan will affect many users of this spectrum, including Specialized Mobile Radio systems ("SMR"), Business Radio and Industrial/Land Transportation Radio ("B/ILT") systems and Public Safety Communications systems. It will also affect and substantially benefit Cellular Radio Telecommunications (~cellular") systems. Although these actions will impose short-term costs on the affected parties, no private radio or commercial licensee will experience a net gain or loss in the amount of spectrum it currently holds. These parties will benefit in the long-term because they will be relieved of the burdens associated with ongoing coordination requirements, including operating restrictions and channel deployment limitations necessary to protect public safety communications systems from interference. Additionally, although it is not necessary to relocate cellular licensees in the upper portion of tk 800 MHz band, 824/849 - 869/894 .MHz, these licensees increasingly are the cause of CMHS - public safety interference and will need to undertake mitigation responsibilities to help achieve an effective, long-term solution to CMRS - public safety'interference. The proposed realignment offers an equitable approach in which all involved categories of licensees would share the benefits and burdens in implementing a solution that enables public safety providers to serve the public more effectively and more reliably. Public safety agencies are facing enormous challenges in light of the recent terrorist attacks on our nation. As PSWN has observed, the ~tragic events of September 11, 2001 have underscored the need for public safety response and coordination on a massive, unprecedented scale." Congress has recently emphasized the need to address this challenge, and the FCC has just announced the creation of a Homeland Security Policy Council composed of senior staff officials from throughout the Commission. The Council is charged with ensuring "that public safety, health and other emergency and defense personnel have effective communications available to them to assist the public as needed." The actions recommended by this White Paper realigning the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band and the allocation of an additional l0 MHz of readily useable spectrum for public safety services - will address these critical needs. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. The Problem This White Paper explains the reasons for the increasing incidence~of CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band. Public safety and CMRS systems are operating essentially incompatible wireless system designs on adjacent, interleaved and mixed 800 MHz channels. The result is interference to public safety communications in the vicinity of CMRS base stations -- even though all licensees are operating in compliance with the FCC's rules and the terms and conditions of their FCC licenses. In addition, public safety communicators have an urgent need for additional spectrum in the near-term to support enhanced and improved communications.to protect life, property and national security. This White Paper concludes that, to make additional spectrum available for Public Safety at 800 MHz and solve CMRS - public safety interference, some 800 MHz incumbents must move from their current channel assignments. B. The. Solution · The optimum solution is to realign the 36 MHz of 800 MHz public safety/CMRS spectrum by creating two separate (adjacent) contiguous channel'blocks: 20 MHz to Public Safety (channels 1 - 400), and i6 MHz (channels 401 - 720) to commercial digital wireless networks. Public safety is currently allocated 9.5 MHz at 800 MHz; this proposal would more than double public safety's allocation to 20 MHz. To clear space for'the public safety block, Nextel (the predominant incumbent commercial licensee with 18 MHz at 800 MHz) would relocate its licenses in channels 1 - 400 (8+ MHz of the total 20 MHz) to other spectrum at its own cost. Nextel will also contribute its 700 MHz Guard Band (4 MHz) and 900 MHz SMR licenses (4 of the 5 MHz SMR allocation at 900 MHz) to make spectrum available for relocating 800 MHz B/ILT incumbents and high-site (non-cellular) SMR incumbents from the new public safety block. In return for the 16 MHz Nextel would contribute for these purposes, Nextel would be licensed replacement spectrum as follows: (1) 6 MHz at 821/824 - 866/869 MHz (the current NPSPAC channels) made.available by consolidating and expanding the Public Safety spectrum in channels 1-400; and (2) a 10 MHz contiguous block from the reserve Mobile Satellite Service {"MSS") spectrum at 2.1 GHz, reallocated for terrestrial CMRS service and licensed to Nextel on a nationwide basis. Incumbent B/ILT and non-cellular SMRs could remain at 800 MHz in the new public safety block on a secondary, non-interference basis where that arrangement is poszible and desired by the parties, i.e., tertiary and rural markets, or temporarily until public safety entitie need the spectrum. The Commission should, however, create incentives for B/ILT and non- cellular SMRs to relocate expeditiously to the vacant 700 MHz or 900 MHz channels. The 6 MHz of NPSPAC channels, in combination with the 10 MHz (816/821 - 861/866) already licensed for advanced technology SMR systems, would become a 16 MHz Iow power, low-site, digital SMR channel block. Nextel would move its operations in the new public safety block to this advanced SMR block, as would any other digital advanced SMR incumbent licensee in the new public safety block. Nextel would commit to fund up to $500'million of the costs of relocating incumbent 800 MHz public safety incumbents -- primarily from the NPSPAC channels to channels 1 - 400. Cellular operators should also contribute to public safety retuning costs, as should other CMRS licensees benefiting from the proposed 800 MHz realignment. C. Public Interest Benefits Realigning the 800 MHz band would rationalize the current spectrum hodgepodge that fundamentally causes CMRS - public safety interference, thereby creating the spectrum allocations that .make it possible ultimately to virtually eliminate CMRS - public safety interference on a nationwide, long-term basis. It would more than double the public safety spectrum allocation at 800 MHz from 9.5 MHz of interleaved channels to 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum -- providing near-term spectrum relief in a band where equipment is readily available and that is adjacent to the future 700 MHz public safety channel block. No private or commercial licensee would experienc~--~-~e~ 'g~i~-'or i6~S of ~ctru~,' b~t all would be relieved of current interference-related burdens and have greater freedom to expand their networks in the future. III. NEXTEL'S INTEREST IN THE REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL As the predominant commercial licensee in the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band, Nextel holds numerous geographic area and site-by-site licenses that are adjacent to, interleaved with and mixed among public safety communications license assignments. Nextel is the fifth largest CMRS carrier in the nation, providing a unique combination of cellular, short messaging, internet access, data transmission and Direct Connect? -- a digital two-way radio feature that enables subscribers to reach other Nextel customers with the push of a button even if they are hundreds of miles away. As Nextel expands its network to provide enhanced coverage and increased capacity to serve its more than eight million customers, it finds itself unintentionally causing, along with other CMRS licensees, interference to public safety communications in a number of major metr6politan areas around the nation. Given its position as the primary http ://wireless .fcc. gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_final.txt 12/7/01 Page 4 of22~ incumbent CMRS licensee in the Land Mobile Radio band, any realignment or consolidation of the 800 MHz public safety or commercial spectrum will require Nextel's cooperation. Nextel submits this White Paper proposing a plan for 800 MHz realignment because it establishes the basis for an effective, long-term solution to CMRS - public safety interference. Nextel has expended significant staff and financial resources to mitigate interference to public safety communications on a case-by-case basis, including voluntarily agreeing to limit use of its licensed frequencies at certain sites, reducing power, reorienting antennas and similar measures. It has taken these actions voluntarily to safeguard the reliability of public safety communications, and thus the safety of emergency response personnel and the public they protect, even though Nextel is operating in full compliance with the FCC's rules and regulations. Cellular licensees are also a source of interference to public safety systems and are finding it necessary to take similar actions to alleviate CMR~ - public safety interference. As discussed herein, cellular A-band operators are causing interference to public safety communications in cities across the nation; in some cases, B-band cellular operators contribute to the interference. It is very difficult to coordinate the dynamic frequency reuse plans of multiple cellular-type~commercial providers to protect nearby public safety communications systems from interference on a case-by-case basis. This approach imposes considerable burdens on all affected licensees and is limited in its effectiveness. Moreover, the burdens and difficulties of case-by-case remediation will only increase as all 800 MHz systems - both commercial and public safety - evolve to meet expanding demand for enhanced wireless communications services. For all of these reasons, Nextel proffers the proposed realignment'plan as a means of alleviating CMRS - public safety interference by implementing a rational band plan for 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio use. This plan would correct the spectrum allocation and licensing practices that are at the root of the CMRS - public safety interference problem while providing growth opportunities for affected public safety, CMRS, B/ILT and high-site SMR systems. Nextel is also willing to contribute a substantial amount of spectrum as well as financial and human resources to the plan's implementation. Nextel would gain no additional spectrum nnder the proposed realignment plan; in fact, Nextel would incur a net loss of approximately 0.5 MHz of spectrum. In exchange for the substantial contribution it is willing to make to the proposed plan, Nextel would be relieved'of the burdens and risks involved in its current efforts to address CMRS - public safety interference. Nextel would also benefit by replacing its channel assignments in the 700 MHz, 800 MHz, and 900 M~z bands with two blocks of contiguous spectrum: 16 MHz at 800 MHz (of which Nextel is already licensed for a 10 MHz contiguous block) and 10 MHz at 2.1 GHz reallocated from the MSS band that has not been assigned to any MSS licensee. IV. BACKGROUND A. The Current 800 MHz Band Plan Over the past 30 years, the Commission has allocated spectrum for and licensed a variety of wireless communications services at 800 MHz. Communications services in this band include public safety communications systems - the radio networks used bypolice, fire and rescue personnel - as well as other state and local governmental services. They include the private systems licensed to businesses and industrial facilities to provide internal network wireless communications in and around manufacturing plants and for businesses. The 800 MHz spectrum is also home to commercial wireless providers, including the two cellular licensees in each local market and SMR licensees. These commercial providers compete, along with Personal Communications Service (~PCS") providers, to offer Americans a variety of competitively priced wireless communications services that have become an essential part of contemporary life. The current 800 MHz band plan dates back to 1974, when the Commission reallocated former D-HF television channels 70 - 83, and 35 MHz of federal government spectrum, to Land Mobile Radio Systems. It earmarked 40 MHz of this spectrum for cellular systems, 30 MHz for conventional and trunked radio systems, and held the remainder in reserve. Under this technology-based allocation, applicants desiring to operate conventional land mobile radio systems could apply for channels from the 100 channel conventional service allocation, regardless of whether the applicant planned to provide communications support to public safety providers, a private ~etwork, or commercial wireless services to third parties. An applicant intending to operate trunked systems could apply for 5, 10, 15 or 20 channel groups from the upper 200 trunked channel allocation, again without regard to whether the applicant would use them in a private business network, offer for-profit commercial services, or dedicate its network to supporting police, fire, rescue and other public safety or public works services. Given existing technological capabilities in 1974, system designers feared that the channels used in a multiple channel network would interfere with each other~ Since 1974, therefore, the FCC's overriding concern in licensing 800 MHz land mobile trnnked systems (an~ in assigning additional channels to conventional systems) has been to prevent interference between providers or users of the same communications service (~intrasystem interference") by assigning channels one megahertz apart, rather than ass±~ing contiguous channels. Until recently, the Commission believed that interference between providers or users of different communications services (~intersystem interference") would not be a problem in its 800 MHz spectrum allocation and channel assignment decisions. As a result, 800 MHz commercial land mobile radio licenses are not contained in discrete, separa'te blocks or sub-bands, as is the case for cellular and PCS licensees, but are spread almost randomly throughout the land mobile band, separated only by co-channel base station distance requirements. Public safety, B/ILT and commercial providers are interleaved, mixed and adjacent to each other creating a hodgepodge of different types of service providers - sometimes sharing the same channels (but separated by specified co-channel distances), and Page 5 o1'22 sometimes using adjacent channels. The fact that the cellular allocation is adjacent to the NPSPAC channels creates an even more complicated mix of:spectrum uses and technologies and further exacerbates the potential for interference. This situation posed no apparent problems when all licensees were using the same technology; i.e., a few high-power, high-site transmitters serving an entire metropolitan area. Cb[RS licensees, however, have.now adopted more efficient system architectures that employ multiple base stations and frequency reuse techniques to achieve the network capacity to meet growing consumer demand for their services. As described in_~n--~-~-~°~W~-~he-llaa~the_h~es_~sediffering system architectures in the 800 '~~"~-~-~d ~-~ated locally disparate signal streng~-~5~"~-'~d~-c-~i~-'-d-i?~~--~"~A~~ .... D~-~ ...... ~"---'~-- ~. '~ ............ ~- ~ erence to p_c_u__ lc sazeuy comraunicaElons sysuems. ~ ......................................................................... ~ B. ~k-g'rD~Ii'8-ga~ff~'-~E~F~e~n~%n the 800 ~z Band In the past few years, there have been numerous reports regarding CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band in municipalities across the country. In a typical incident, a police officer or firefighter finds that his or her mobile radio does not work well - or at all - ir areas near CMRS base stations where communications had previously been satisfactory. Interference to public, safety radios raises serious public interest concerns, as public safety officials use these radios to provide communications supporting life 'safety services, such as police, fire and rescue services, as well as othergovernmental functions including road maintenance, trash collection, security services, traffic management, snow removal and similar public works services. CMRS - public safety interference has been reported in about 25 cities throughout the nation includin~ Seattle, Washington; Miami, Florida; Hialeah, Florida; Orange County, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Baltimore, Maryland; and Salt hake City, Utah. These reports are becoming more frequent with the increased buildout of commercial wireless networks that use advanced cellular-type, multiple base station architecture to place a strong localized si~nal."on the ground" relative tO the si[rnal strength found in' public safety networks using one or a few distant base stations to cover a large area. These factors create conditions in which interference is likely, despite the fact that all affected parties are operating their communications systems in full compliance with the Commission's rules and the ~arameters of their FCC licenses. In some cases, a commercial SMR operator such as Nextel is the sole source or a contributing source of interference to public safety systems. A cellular operator can be the sole source of CMRS - public safety interference, and cellular operators can combine with each other or with commercial SMR operators to cause interference -- particularly when using co-located base station sites. For example, officers of the City of Denver Police Department experienced disruptive interference on their 800 MHz mobile communications system in the immediate vicinity of approximately 20 Nextel base stations - largely due to inte~wa~dula6i0n prod¢c'tS fOrmed'in the 'bffiO~fS~'-~i6S'''- e~n' fih6u~h'~e~l' was operating in full compliance with the Commission's rules. Interference has disrupted police communications in the vicinity of co-located Nextel and AT&T Wireless {the cellular A-band licensee) base stations in the nearby cities of Cherry ~ills and Westminster, Colorado. The Maul, Hawaii Police Department reported that its officers' handsets and mobile units were experiencing interference at a heavily-trafficked shopping center near the co-located base stations.of the cellular A band licensee, AT&T Wireless, and Nextel Partners. The interference resulted primarily from. AT&T Wireless's operations on frequencies adjacent to the channels iicensed to the police communications system, with a secondary contribution from Nextel Partners' co-located transmissions. In Oregon, the City of Portland and the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency ("WCCCA") identified interference in the immediate vicinity of a number of Nextel base stations. Working together, WCCCA and Nextel engineers .have resolved most of these situations; however, as WCCCA expands its communications network geographically into adjacent counties and into the NPSPAC channels - to meet increasing demand and coverage requirements - adjacent A'-band cellular operations are causing interference. The City of Portland is also experiencing interference in the vicinity of CMRS base stations,-including the cellular A band carrier and Nextel - both alone and in combination. Similarly, police, fire and emergency medical services personnel in Anne Arundel County, Maryland have reported interference to mobile communications in the vicinity of co-located cellular (here Cin~ular and Verizon) and/or Nextel base stations. As the County considers technical specifications for a replacement radio system, it is asking all in-band carriers to participate in a channel coordination effort for controlling interference to its public safety radi¢ system. The County is also asking Nextel to work with it on a possible channel swap to alleviate the continuing interference. Such a swap could be a localized version of the realignment proposal set forth herein. C. Efforts to Address CMR8 - Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band The Commission began receiving inquiries and complaints about CMRS - public safety interference in 1999. In April 2000, it brought together affected parties in response to increased- reports of interference to 800 Mllz public safety radio networks apparently resulting from the operations of nearby commercial systems, even though all providers were operating within the parameters of their FCC licenses. A number of participants formed a working group to identify the causes of the interference, identify mitigation alternatives, and develop joint planning and technical solutions for preventiag interference. On January 4, 2001, the group presented to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the ~Wireless Bureau") a "Best Practices Guide" that provides a Broad overview of practices that can be used to identify and alleviate interference between public safety systems and commercial systems. The Best Practices Guide offers strategies that can mitigate interference through frequency planning, strategic location of public safety and commercial base stations, system design improvements for commercial and/or public safety networks, equipment upgrades, http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/011121-whitepaper_fmal.txt 12/7/01 Page 6 of 22, frequency swaps, and, if necessary, FCC rule-changes or waivers. Subsequently, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International ("APCO") established an initiative called Project 39 to further the goals of the Best Practices Guide. APCO Project 39 membership includes persons representing the public safety community, manufacturers and commercial operators as well as the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the associations representing police and fire chiefs. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau named the Deputy Chief for Public Safety of the Bureau's Public Safety and Private Wireless Division as the FCC's liaison to Project 39. Notwithstanding these efforts, reports of CMRS - public safety interference continue. Disruptive interference has been reported recently in the vicinity of four CMRS sites in the Las Vegas area, at additional sites in south Florida, and at sites in the Greater Los Angeles area. These re orts illustrate the continuin nature of this problem and indicate~.~~ioDal instanQ~S~}~.~.~MRS i'"~B'~5~6 'safeE~nterference wil~d~r unless the FCC takes effective v.'T-- .... ~-'~b~'~S-'~-"'~~~fi'~~- D- _ .... PUBLIC SAFETY COMMLS~ITY'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM' One of Congress's overriding objectives in establishing the FCC was "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, . . a rapid, efficient, nationwide world-wide wire and radio communication services. . . for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication." Consistent with this vital objective, the FCC is responsible for devising an effective, long-term solution to the problem of CMRS - publi6 safety interference in the 800 MHz band, and for acting on requests ~o allocate additional spectrum for public safety communications. Specifically, the Commission should: (1) recognize that the current spectrum allocation and spectrum licensing structure of the 800 MHz band is the fundamental cause of CMRS - public safety interference in this band; (2) correct this problem by, among other things, realigning the 36 MHz of land mobile radio spectrum at 806/824 - 851/869 MHz so that public safety, private radio, and CMRS are'no longer commingled; and (3) allocate an additional 10 MHz of near-term available spectrum at 800 MHz for ~ublic safety communications. A. The Mixed Licensing of Public Safety, Private and Commercial Systems Throughout the 800 MHz Band is the Fundamental Cause of CMRS - Public Safety Interference The potential for CMRS - public safety interference in a specific area is, of course, influenced by the particular facts and circumstances of each local situation. As noted above, there are two b~i~c_.._u~n_~S~2ci,~ causes of this interference: (1) the interleaved and mixed a~-~cation of public safety, private radio, and CMRS systems ~ddress ~th~"'t'~-"f~T~"~Hrrd-~a~"'f~U'~'~ble to rectify CMRS - public safety interference sn the 800 MHz band. Interleaved and Mixed Spectrum Allocations and Licensing. One of the two fundamental causes of CMRS - public safety interference is the shared, mixed and interleaved allocation and licensing of commercial, private and public safety systems throughout the 800 MHz band. Because public .safety channels are interleaved among and adjacent to CMRS and B/ILT channels, and because public safety licensees-can be found throughout the 806/824 - 851/869 MHz band, public safety radios must be able to transmit and receive on any of these channels so that they can be used on any public safety system. The Land Mobile Radio spectrum allocation is so intermixed that it is technically i~,~g~ical c~-i'~-~ic'~n~-'t-b--%~ ~~i~l~'' Thd-----~~l~-~ ~f spectrum at---~d~-ff~'~-~t-'~I~'~e 'b~nd .9,~~3t~m~.~_~n~g 79.~-~!,~'~~.-.~ti°ns s~tems ~hrou~houC""~H~"'~'~ MHz-"BA-ff~'~ it i~9~sihle to _d_esi~"~ceivers t~gt will ssrfet-y--g~aasm~-ss~s and filter out other systems smgna~s within ~Se band. - bandpass or preselector filters in response to ambient temperature changes. As the temperature varies, the range of frequencies that pass through the receiver's front end shifts up and down; the filters must therefore pass an even wider range of channels to ensure that the receiver "hears" the ~esired channels. Most public safety receivers "hear" and respond to RF energy in the adjacent 824/849 - 869/894 MHz cellular band with minimal signal strength attenuation, as well as in the .,_806/824 - 851/869 MHz land mobile channels. The broad frequency response of public safety receiver equipment permits multiple RF emissions from SMR transmitters, cellular transmitters, or mixtures of both to combine ~n a public safety receiver and produce interference. Diverging System Architectures~ The Commission's approach of allocating and licensing different services on adjacent, interleaved, and mixed spectrum in the 800 MHz band worked so long as all licensees built systems using the same basic "noise-limited" design architecture: analog, high-site, high power configurations without frequency reuse. Over the past decade, however, commercial land mobile systems have transitioned to "interference-limited" system designs featuring multiple, low-power base stations with intensive frequency reuse and mobile hand-off from cell-to=cell throughout a geographic area to serve many times more users with the same quantity of spectrum. At the same time, cellular operators licensed above 869 MHz adjacent to the NPSPAC channels have expanded the capacity and coverage of their "interference-limited" ,systems. By introducing digital modulation technologies and numerous low sites, these cellular operators more intensively reuse their spectrum to meet the substantial growth in demand for commercial wireless services. These differing system architectures can result in locally robust CMR~_signg!~...~b~eing' much stronger than distant, l~s~s_..robust_~pl&h_l_i~c safe¢~-~f~s~!ons,, particularly withl a few Hun~'~-d-~%~F"SY"t~e~c~F~T~S~ba~e station whereC%-~mercial ~-~{s strongest. This disparity in signal strength leads to three types of interference: rage / oI zz (1) Intermodulation. Intermodulation ("IMf) is the primary interference mechanism involved in Cb[RS - public safety interference= It occurs when locally stronger CMRS signals, on non-public safety frequencies, combine in the public safety receiver itself to form a new frequency or frequencies, much like combining red and yellow paint produces a new color -- orange. (2) Wideband noise interference. The large signal strength disparity between typical high-site public safety and low-site commercial systems means that wideband noise produced by the commercial systems, while fully within FCC limits, may still be strong enough to cause interference to the relatively weak signals produced by the public safety radio system, particularly if t~ose signals are close to the thermal noise limit of the public safety receivers. (3) Receiver Overload Interference. If a commercial SMR or cellular operator has a large number of transmitters at a given site (to serve user demand), a public safety radio designed to receive very weak signals may be overloaded by the cumulative energy coming from the nearby site. I'~t warrants reemphasizing 'that the incidents of CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHZ band reported to date have not resulted from the failure of any party to comply with Commission rules or the parameters set forth in its license Rather, such interference results ~om the normal operation of systems designed and optimized to meet pub 1 i~ -'~-~e ty ~nd ~o-~c~-~~'§~'-~s~~d~&~' a~en~, iht s~-h~&r~d~ anne s / "No 1 $ e 2~~,-~pu~i~c~s~7-~y~ t-~q%~5~ ha~b~q~'~ ~"~['[~%~ r~'~~ mode 1 f~ub~i~B~-~ety deployments given that public safety operators, spending public funds, must cover large geographic areas as economically as possible. CMRS providers, ~n contrast, have acted rationally in response to marketplace demandby making substantial investments in digital, frequency reuse technologies to meet the dramatically increasing consumer demand for their wireless communications services. B. 800 MHz Realignment Will Create the Spectrum Allocations Necessary to Mitigate CMRS - Public Safety Interference The ability of law enforcement, fire departments, and other public safety agencies to communicate effectively and without harmful interference is critical to the safety of life and property and our nation's security. The public safety community and the CMRS industry have worked to address these problems through the Best Practices Guide and ~{o~.ect, S~39, and these parties should be commended for undertaking t e~ ~n~[~'~.~'h~s~e~ts, while a positive step, are nonetheless ad hoc and time consuming and impose significant burdens on all parties. Incident-by-incident, after-the-facu interference remediation will inevitably fail to protect fully the safety of law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other emergency responders, and fail to keep pace with the evolving communications needs of both public safety and commercial communications providers. CMRS - public'safe~_~_interference is likely to worsen in the coming serve~a~i~[~onal users on ex~stin~ect~ and to meet the 9rowing demand for competitive commercial wireless communications, including high speed data and other advanced services. Public safety communicators, despite limited ftmding and network infrastructure, must provide expanded communications coverage - particularly in-building coverage - as well as data and other enhanced capabilities to support life safety services in growing cities and suburbs. These realities will increasingly juxtapose locally robust CMRS deployments with public safety communications systems operating with relatively weak signals - a recipe for ~ncreased CMRS - public safety communications interference under the current 800 MHz band plan. Given these risk factors, the Commission must use its regulatory authority to implement'a long-term solution that corrects the underlying cause of 800 MHz CMRS - public safety interference by realigning the 36 MHz of Land Mobile Radio spectrum in the 806/824 - 851/869 MHz band to separate public safety channels and commercial channels into exclusive, contiguous blocks. As discussed further in section VI.B., below, the Commission and the public safety community must consider additional measures to safeguard against CMRS - public safety interference, including a possible guard band and the reduction of public safety receiver sensitivity outside the public safety channel block. These actions would eliminate the underlying bases for CMRS - public safety interference a~d.~rovide ~ ~e~r-universal solution. ,U~.-~.e.~$.~,~9.~..~9,~.~9.~...~ndates 8.Q.Q.MHz operasors will lace une ongoing chail'~e' of case-by-6as~' inherent 1y dynamic "~6'~KV~'~E'~fi'~ wi th c ~ o~$ cooper~'~"'~3h~l~i~&~'; of~-H~'~-G-d~'S'g~d'~5~t'~ued threat of impaired public safety communications, not to mention the spectral constraints it imposes on commercial carriers, warrants the cost and effort necessary to implement the ubiquitous, permanent solution described her-~. ....................................... ' .......................... ' .................. ~"~ The same considerations that call for a realignment of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band shaped the band plan the FCC adopted for future public safety and CMRS systems that will operate in the 700 MHz band spectrum reallocated from broadcast television service on I/HF Channels 60-69. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 directed the Commission to reallocate 24 MHz of this spectrum for public safety use and 36 MHz of this spectrum for commercial use. Instead of interleaving commercial and public safety channels in this spectrum, the Commission has designated contiguous spectrum blocks (channels 60-62 and 65-67) for exclusive commercial use, and separate contmguous spectrum ~locks (channels 63-64 and 68-69) for exclusive public safety use. In addition, the Commission established guard bands in the commercial spectrum immediately adjacent to the public safety bands and prohibited commercial licensees in these http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_fmal.txt 12/7/01 Page 8 of 22, bands from employing cellular architectures. The FCC adopted these measures in response to concerns that commercial, interference-limited systems could not co-exist adjacent to noise- limited public safety systems without interference. These same concerns warrant 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band realignment. C. The Public Safety Community Needs Additional Spectrum for Communications Services As part of realigning the 36 MHz of Land Mobile Radio spectrum in the 806/824 - 851/869 MHz band, the Commission should allocate additional spectrum for public safety services by creating a 20 MHz contiguous, primary public safety channel block in the 806/816 - 851/861 MHz band. This proposal would more than double, from 9.5 MHz to 20 MHz, the public safety spectrum at 800 MHz. There is a pressing need to allocate additional spectrum for public safety communications. In 1996, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee '("PSWAC") issued a report that, among other things, recommended that the FCC allocate 97.5 MHz of additional spectrum for public safety services to meet the current and foreseeable requirements for wireless communications through the year 2010. The Commission took an important step towards meeting these requirements in 1997 when, as described above, it reallocated 24 MHz of spectrum from television channels 60 - 69 for public safety use in the 700 MHz band and subsequently established a band plan and service rules for that spectrum allocation. Due, however, to current television broadcaster incumbency, public safety communications providers in most parts of the nation cannot yet access this spectrum, and may continue to be foreclosed from deploying service there for many more years. This uncertainty has, in turn, hindered the development of 700 MHz public safety communications equipment. Thus, while 700 MHz may offer a partial long-term solution to the spectrum needs of public safety communications, it does not provide short-term or even medium-term relief. As noted above, on September 14, 2001, PSWN filed a petition for rulemaking reiterating the urgent need to allocate an additional 71 MHz of spectrum to meet public safety needs, and described the delays encountered in deploying public safety services in the 700 MHz band. PSWN states that, "the greatest spectrum need of public safety wireless communications is for bandwidth to support low-speed data, high-speed data, and video. These capabilities, incorporating the latest technologies, would allow local law enforcement, fire, and emergency management service personnel to employ the quickest and most informed approach in performing their duties2" The petition also "reassert[ed] the urgent need for additional interoperability spectrum to be allocated for use by public safety agencies in all bands." According to PSWN, such an allocation ~is important primarily because of the emergence of new, innovative, life-saving technologies that will likely require greater bandwidth to function optimally." The compelling necessity of 800 MHz realignment to combat CMRS - public safety interference provides the FCC with a unique opportunity to allocate additional spectrum for public safety communications systems in a band where equipment is already available. Consequently, the Commission should reallocate 10.5 MHz of 800 MHz SMR spectrum for public safety use to be consolidated and realigned on a contiguous basis with the existing 9.5 MHz of public safety spectrum at 800 MHz. Equipment is readily available for public safety use on 800 MHz spectrum, and relocating SMR (and many B/ILT) incumbents from this spectrum can be achieved in a relatively short timeframe - as short as two to three years and certainly before relocation of incumbent broadcasters out of the 700 MHz public safety channels can be completed~ This reallocation will help meet the public safety community's urgent need for additional spectrum to accommodate data applications as well as critical interoperability needs. It will also provide public safety communications a larger contiguous block of spectrum in .the 800 MHz band that is directly adjacent to the 700 MHz spectrum that has been reallocated for exclusive public safety use. This additional spectrum will provide the basic spectral resource for the development of advanced communications capabilities to support both Nomeland Security and "everyday" public safety services in the post-September 11 environment. VI. PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY BY REALIGNING THE 800 MHZ BAND A~D ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO PUBLIC SAFETY ~0~fONICATIONS ~ A.~ ~he Reali nga~_~ ~-his Whit~-~per has ~es~ribed two vital steps to promote public ~afety communications: mitigating current and future CMRS - public safety interference, and providing public safety licensees with additional, useable spectrum as quickly as possible. To accomplish these steps, the Commission should implement the following spectrum reallocations and redesignations, and the subsequent mandatory relocation and voluntary.relocation of various incumbent licensees: (1) Reallocate the 800 MHz General Category and interleaved SMH, B/ILT and public safety channels, 800 MHz channels 1 - 400 (806/816 - 851/861 MHz), to. create a 20 MHz conti~uous, primary Public Safety spectrum block. (2) Reallocate the 6 MHz of public safety NPSPAC channels (821/824 - 866/869) and the adjacent'10 MHz of upper 200 SMR channels (816/821 - 861/866) for advanced technology commercial wireless systems using ~interference-limited" multiple low- site, low-power systems architecture. The Commission should license the additional 6 MHz to Nextel in partial exchange for the spectrum it will vacate and swap to help implement 800 MHz realignment; Nextel is already the dominant incumbent licensee on the adjacent 10 MHz. (3) Reallocate 10 MHz of contiguous spectrum (2020/2025 - 2170/2175) from MSS for exclusive terrestrial advanced commercial mobile communications services. This Page 9 of 22 block is currently not being used by any MSS licensee, but includes non-MSS Broadcast Auxiliary Service incumbents that must be relocated to enable advanced mobile communications services to use this band, as detailed in section VIII.B. below. The Commission should license this 10 MHz to Nextel as part of this proceeding in an even exchange for certain of its licenses totaling 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700, 800 and 900 MHz bands to make the 800 MHz band realignment possible. (4) Redesignate 4 MHz of the 5 MHz of SMR spectrum at 900 MHz (896/901 - 934- 940), currently licenSed to Nextel, for traditional (noise~limited) co-primary B/ILT and high-site SMR use. (5) Redesignate the 50 Business and 50 I/LT channels between 809.75/816 - 854.75/861 MHz from primary B/ILT to primary public safety use as part of the channels I - 400 public safety block. Incumbent B/ILT licensees would be permitted to remain on these channels on a secondary, non-interf6rence basis or voluntarily relocate as described below. (6) Redesignate the 4 MHz of 700 MHz Guard Band spectrum (762/764 - 792/794 MHz) from Guard Band Manager to co-primary B/ILT and high-site, analog SMR use, and modify the .current service rules that apply to this spectrum to achieve this objective. (7) Expedite the current schedule for mandatory retuning of all Broadcast Auxiliary Service incumbents at 2020 - 202.5 MHz, and, to the extent necessary, terrestrial Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave systems at 2170 - 2175. (8) Require mandatory retuning of all advanced technology (interference-limited) CMRS SMR systems from the new 800 MHz Public Safety Block (800 MHz channels 1 through 400) to the 16 MHz advanced technology block at 800 MHz. (9) Require mandatory retuning of all public safety licensees in the NPSPAC channels, 821/824 - 866/869 MHz, to the new 806 MHz Public Safety channels through the assistance of a Special Public Safety Frequency Coordinator, as detailed below. This mandatory retuning of public safety systems would be funded in large part by Nextel, any other advanced technology SMR licensee, and the cellular licensees. (10) Permit voluntary retuning of B/ILT incumbents and noise-limited SMR incumbents to the new 900 MHz B/ILT and traditional SMa spectrum, or to the 700 MHz former 9uard band channels, with~ the assistance of Frequency Coordinators on a first-come, first-served basis. At the end of the relocation period, all users would be grouped together in discrete parts of the band depending on their technology choices. No private radio or commercial licensee would experience a net gain or loss Of spectrum, and all licensees would have the opportunity to gain increased spectrum efficiency because of the new contiguous and near-contiguous spectrum grants. To facilitate this realignment plan, the Commission should waive applicable FCC fees associated with the relocation and other license modification applications that would need to be filed by incumbent licensees under this plan. This 800 M}lz realignment plan offers the mosu expeditious and efficient path to eliminating CMRS - public safety interference. Nextel has evaluated other realignment alternatives, including separating public safety, B/ILT and commercial/advanced SMR licensees into separate blocks within the 800 MHz band; requiring the immediate refitting or replacement of all public safety receivers to achieve higher IM rejection specifications; moving all 800 public safety systems to 700 MHz or to 900 MHz; requiring CMRS and public safety licensees to mitigate interference on a case-by-case basis much as they have been doing to date; and requiring extensive and careful frequency coordination between CMRS providers and public safety communications systems. None of these alternatives effectively achieves the essential public interest objective of correcting the fundamental cause of CMRS - public safety interference at 800 MHz while making a significant amount of near-term spectrum available for B hanced and expanded public safety communications networks. ~dditional Measures To Prevent CMRS - Public Safety Interference 'W~he real-~'~.~n~0~z~L~o~-~l-~-Service spectrum band is~ential step ~rd eliminating har~f~l~CMR~.- public safety interference in this' band.~nt alone, u ~ver, Wl±i nou compieue±y e±lminate this interf~r~n~ h~l, ..... =I~-- ~m-~'~v--~.~9~. r~s ond to RF'ene~ ......... f~ ........ ' ...... ~"'m~ ................ ~ .................. Y Y ~ ................. gy om the ad]acent digital SMR and dellu .......... ~ ................................................... ~ ................. ' nu ......... ~ .......... ' ..................................... lar Ban~s. ~[ls section ~iscus§'~ a mbe[ o~ p?tent~ s~glong ~ ~¢DTe~.~T~,O~i~l~5~i~by rule adopt any of these speciEic alternatives or insteao authorize public safety frequency coordinators to implement them in whole or in combination as warranted on a regional, metropolitan area, or other geographic basis. Improved Receivers. ~D~.~gns of reducing CMRS - Public safet¥interference is to im~e_ p_ub 1 i c safe tV re c~i~'~'~~~7~'~?~'g*~r~* ...... ~e~. ~~ - --~- ~,~~- --~---= -~= ouu mhz Dana ~o e±lmlnate interleaved mixed spectrum should enable equipment manufacturers to design n&rrower band-pass preselector filters and/or receiver signal attenuation characteristics that would in most cases prevent commercial transmissions from forming intermodulation products in public safety receivers. Narrower filters could limit receiver sensitivity to the new public safety channel block; if the receiver did not respond (or had a much smaller response) to signals outside the public-safety http://wireless.fc¢.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_fmal.txt 12/7/01 Page 10 of-22, band, it would not be susceptible to intermodutation interference. Alternatively, if such filters were too costly, required too much space in the receiver or imposed undesirable performance tradeoffs, manufacturers could couple a somewhat less restrictive preselecter with a fixed or variable attenuator to combat intermodulation. Digital SMR, cellular and PCS receivers already use this type of automatic attenuation capability to control potential intermodulation interference. Based on analysis of CMRS - public safety interference in several cities as well as current receiver performance specifications and characteristics, it is recommended that the Commission adopt the following performance standards for 800 MHz public safety and CMRS systems to prevent harmful interference between these systems: ? Public-safety mobile or portable receivers should be able to receive the desired public safety signal in the presence of commercial signals having a composite average power of -10 dBm, a peak-to-average ratio of 15 dB, and a. noise output that conforms to the FCC requirements for transmitters in the band. ? In accordance with the licensee relocation schedule discussed in section VI.F. below, all public-safety receivers should meet or exceed the following performance standards by the end of the mandatory relocation period specified for a given EA: Item Requirement Intermodulation rejection 75 dB or better Front-end filtering The receiver should incorporate filters ahead of the first active stage such that commercial signals outside the public-safety range are attenuated no less than 20 dB more than any attenuation provided to signals in the public- safety range. This filtering should take place under all operating conditions. Adjacent-channel rejection 75 dB or better Reference sensitivity < -112 dBm' Additional CMRS Base Station Filtering. In addition to receiver standards, the Commission should require additional filtering of CMRS base station transmitters to further reduce wideband noise from CMRS transmitters falling in the public-safety band. Specifically, all commercial transmitters in the 851- 894 MHz band could be required to attenuate energy in the public-safety band no less than 85 dB below the desired carrier level. Guard Band/Advanced Technology Band. In order to allow public-safety receiver preselectors and CMHS base station transmitters to filter out signals not in the appropriate band, some spectrum isolation between CMRS and public-safety systems is necessary. One way to achieve this is for public safety coordinators to implement a guard band on the upper end of the base-to-mobile frequency in the 20 MHz public safety block. Requiring a guard band. would be consistent with the band plan adopted by the Commission in allocating spectrum for CMRS and public safety use at 700 MHz. A 2 MHz minimum guard band likely would be required to allow filters in public-safety receivers and CMRS base-station transmitters to function effectively. The Commission should evaluate further whether 2 MHz is sufficient or whether a larger guard band may be required. The Commission should also consider whether this guard band is best treated as ~dead spectrum" or whether public-safety entities should have the flexibility to operate systems in it with the understanding that they must accept any interference they receive from CMRS systems in the adjacent band. A more spectrally-efficient approach to isolating CMRS and public safety systems may be to establish a high technology public safety spectrum set-aside adjacent to the proposed digital SMR spectrum block. Equipment in this portion of the proposed new public safety block could be required to (a) limit on-street infrastructure signal levels to prevent interference to traditior public-safety designs in the lower part of the public-safety band, and (b) be designed to withstand the relatively strong signals fromdigital SMR systems in the adjacent spectrum block. For example, a robustly designed, high-site digital public safety system could be a ~good neighbor" to both traditional high-site public safety systems and adjacent commercial mobile radio services. Thus, the Commission could achieve the benefits of a guard band without wasting or underutilizing scarce spectrum by establishing a digital technology, high-site channel reserve that could be used by public safety operators for data services, telemetry and perhaps interoperable voice services across political jurisdictions. The Commission should also consider requiring any technology used on these channels to be open and non-proprietary and based on, or compatible with, a commercially available wireless technology. This approach would serve the public interest by spurring development of competitive advanced public safety equipment and infrastructure incorporating interference-resistant protocols. Stronger Public Safety Signal Strength. Another alternative CMRS - public safety interference' safeguard would be to require p--~ safety sys~-~'~t~'~~i~-~ore robust signgl · LI ' q v q ~ - ' t ................. ' ' ' ~ .... ~age, 1 oI ZZ coverage. This design approach assumes that publi~.~@~_~.~ystems can 0p.~rate effec~iyely~t /-'~ne-"~Pf~6h'fS"'~'i~i~fffEE'ii~T~E~ff~fi~A"%n a realigned 800 MHz band would'be to require stronger public safety basekto-mobile signal~, i.e., a more robust signal "on the street." By reducln9 the disparity between CMRS and public safety radio signals, a more robust public [\[ safety signal would be more resistant to interference from locally stronger CMRS system base %1~ station transmissions. For exa~e~ while ma~~ a 40 ~u retirement for co cha ~%'¥¢~ tectzon, the Comm~sszon could re~xre new p~lic safer s ~'~e lo en~s .... /nnelr networks to ~rovioe more consistent and robust signals "~"~"~'% '~ &~~-~'~o~.' %~' ~rnatives described ab0~&~individually or in CO~lnatlon, could provide sufficient protection against CES - p~lic safety interference under the 800 Ez realized band plan. The wideband sensitivity of p~lic safety receivers, their resistance to intermodulation, the signal strength of p~lic safety systems, and the t~es of system desi~s and interference resistant tec~olo~ies used adjacent to the p~lic safety block are all interrelated factors that affect how large a guard band is necessa~ in the public safety block to prevent interference. As part of a rulemakin9 proceedin~ to implement the proposed 800 MHz realignment plan, the Commission should consider (a) the numerical standards for the protection tha~ must be provided to public-safety operations, (b) how compliance is to be measured, and (c) whether to allow the public safety co~ity, through its designated fre~ency coordinators or some other representative body, to determine what solutions to pursue. Reduced CMRS Power Levels. One option the Commission should n~~e ~to re, ire CMRS operators to rede t~i~2'~r%~~~~5~u h~'~we~Fn · power or changln9 ante~a characteristics In a 9o~2fait~ ~ff~'~'""~"'~U~f~T~ ......... c~e~ in the Best Pract~ces~, CMRS operators have vol~tarily reduced on-street signal strength in some instances. While this helps to control interference in certain circumstances, it re~ires these CES systems to accept degradation of their networks and their ability to serve customers. The public interest would be disserved by re~irin9 CMRS operators to implement this "stopgap- measure on a permanent basis throu9hout their networks, as to do so would inevitably create coverage "holes," dropped calls, and disrupted service for many existin9 C~S users. In theory, CMRS ~erato.~s could compensate for reduced on-street signal levels by _..~ ............................. ~ ................. 2 radio ca,ices, partlcula[~y ~or less affluent approvals for installin9 larger C~S ante~as and towers, or for the numerous additional base station sites necessary to restore the lost se~ice. Moreover, this approach would do nothing to correct -- and in fact would perpetuate -- the ~derlyin9 spectral problem of incompatible radio system designs and uses on adjacent, interleaved and mixed 800 Ez spect~m. For these reasons, the Co, lesion should reject any suggestion that CMRS operators employ lower power .levels as a long-te~ measure to prevent CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band. ~= ...... Using Mand~t.or-E_~etunin9 g~d._S.p~.ial P~ncy Coordinators to Implement M~h~-~'R'~'~ing. To achieve the p~lic interest benefits of the 800 ~z realignment - i.e., eliminating CMRS - p~lic safety interference and making additional p~lic safety spectrum available expeditiously - the Commission should re~ire incu~ent licensees in the targeted fre~ency blocks, with the exception of B/ILT and traditional SMR licensees, to retie their systems to ~relocate" in the proper spect~m block. Relocat'ion must be mandatory because any non-compliant licensee could create renewed interference potential for itself or for other affected licensees, or could block timely completion of the realignment reallocations. Special Fre~ency Coordinator. To expedite and simplify retuning, the Commission should certify a special "P~lic safety Realignment Fre~ency Coordinator" (the "P~lic Safety Special Coordinator-) whose responsibility would be to: (1) identify specific chapel assignments for publ$c safety licensees relocating'from the NPSPAC channels to the new 800 ~z public safety chapel block (806/816 - 851-861 MHz); (2) verify that the new assignments will reduce or eliminate the potential for CMRS - public safety interference while ensurin9 that incu~ent licensees receive new licenses that are geographically and spectrally e~al to or better than their original licenses; and (3) assist incu~ent NPSPAC licensees with carrying out their retain9 obligations. ' The Public Safety Special Coordinator should be staffed by at least one representative from each of the existing FCC-certified public safety fre~ency coordinators, as well as representation from the existin9 NPSPAC reglonal planning co~ittees and the new 700 MHz planning organizations' Using a unified updated licensin~ database and computerized fre~ency coordination programs, the Public Safety Special Coordinator would identify and p~lish new channel locations for all relocating public safety licensees. The Special Coordinator would carry o~t this process using the regional plannin9 areas as identified for the NPSPAC channels. Individual licensees could review their new assignments and work with the Special Coordinator to ~dertake any refinements, changes or modifications necessary to accost for local propagation anomalies and special terrain factors. The Special Coordinator would also act as a liaison and facilitator with current incu~ents on the public safety block to handle the logistics http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-wh/tepaper_fmal.txt 12/7/01 Page 12 of,2Z of the retuning, relocations and spectrum swaps that will effectuate the relocation process. Few if any incumbents on the lower 70 interleaved pu]01ic safet~ channels would have to relocate because that spectrum would .be within the new 20 M~z public safety block. Relocation may be desirable or necessary in some instances, however, in light of local or regional requirements or other special circumstances. The Commission should permit the Public Safety Special Coordinator to determine whether relocating lower 70-channel public safety incumbents is necessary to make efficient use of the new Public Safety block in a particular planning region and, if so, to identify new assignments Within the new 20 MHz public safety spectrum block, and assist in completing such relocation. f"-~. CMRS Licensees Should Fund the Bulk of Public Safety's Ret~niDg..~qs~ '~ W-vThe 800 MHz reaIlgnment plan cannot be implemented unless public safety entitles have '.~.~ sufficient funds to cover their retuning costs, including applicable engineering, equipment and site costs, base station retuning costs, handset and mobile unit retuning costs, as well as any reasonable additional costs of relocation to fully comparable facilities. In some cases, this may include the costs of new repeaters, antennae and handsets' where retuning existing equipment is not practicable or replacement equipment is requi~ed to prevent interference. Because public safety communications systems are generally funded by tax revenues, government bonds or other public sources, 800 MHz relocation costs could ~mpose an unexpected and unplanned burden on state and local governments - many of which are already struggling to meet increasing costs for roads, schools, health care and other essential public services and facilities. Thus, if public safety communications providers were required to provide funding for the entire cost of their portion of the 800 MHz realignment, it would be difficult to complete realignment in an acceptable time period. The urgent need to eliminate CMRS - public safety interference and make'additional spectrum available for public safety communications systems requires that additional relocation funding resources be made available. Therefore, the Commission should require commercial SMR providers, including Nextel and SouthernLinc?, and the 800 MHz cellular licensees to make a substantial contribution to the costs of retuning public safety communications systems. These CMRS licensees stand to benefit significantly from realigning the 800 MHz band and concomitantly adopting technical and operational requirements that ultimately'will virtually eliminate CMRS - public safety interference. In particular, cellular carriers will be relieved of the burdens of detailed, ongoin~ coordination requirements, operational limitations and channel use restrictions necessary to ~afeguard public safety communications systems from interference. Advanced SMR operators, like Nextel, will be able to consolidate spectrum holdings now mixed and i~terleaved with public safety and B/ILT systems into contiguous, exclusive channel blocks offering increased user capacity and freedom ~rom the operational limits and ongoing coordination procedures otherwise 'necessary to mitigate and/or prevent CMRS - public safety interference. Cellular and advanced SMR/CMRS operators will be free to focus on competing with each other for customers, rather than diverting corporate resources to complex multi-carrier coordination efforts to prevent intermodulation products from falling on public safety channels. Nextel will be the most substantially affected advanced CMRS licensee involved in this project. Nextel is willing to contribute up to $500 million for relocating incumbent public safety communications systems to the new public safe~y channel block at 806/816 - 851/861. While this may cover a substantial portion of the public safety retuning costs, other commercial SMR providers ~nd cellular licensees, particularly the "A" band carriers, should help fund public safety retuning costs. As described above, cellular licensees are a primary source of CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band. The realignment plan would relieve their burdens associated with responding to and mitigating the interference incidents that will become increasingly prevalent in the future. Consequently, all cellular and advanced 800 MHz mobile communications providers should make a substantial contribution toward the costs of retunin~ public safety communications systems from the NPSPAC channels and, where necessary, interleaved lower 70 channels, to the new public safety block. Public safety communications operators would contribute a lesser portion of the costs. This approach will create a public-private partnership effort to eliminate CMRS - public safety interference and make additional spectrum available for public safety communications without damaging the competitiveness'of affected CMRS providers. In identifying those costs eligible for reimbursement and establishing reimbursement procedures, the Commission should follow the approach it adopted in relocatin~ incumbents from the upper 200 SMR channels at 800 Mlqz. Costs incurred to retune public safety incumbents from their current channels assignments to their new assignments in the public safety channel block would be eligible for reimbursement. The costs of expanding or improving existing systems, including upgraded equipment (unless retuning the existing equipment is impractical or impossible), or correcting coverage gaps or other system shortcomings would be if~neligible for reimbursement. ~_Using Voluntary Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators for Realignment of B/ILT and Noise-Limited Traditional SMR Licensees Voluntary Relocation for B/ILT Licensees. The Commission should permit incumbent B/ILT and high-site analog SMR licensees to continue operating on a Secondary, non- interference basis in the 800 b~4z band, while providing incentives for these licensees to relocate voluntarily to the 700. MHz band or 900 MHz band. This flexible approach would enable such licensees and public safety planners to take into account variances in public safety spectrum needs on a local and/or regional basis. Public safety users may not need to inhabit this spectrum immediately throughout the nation; incumbents could remain in those locations (e.g., rural or less populated areas) until public safety users need the spectrum. In addition, some B/ILT and high- site SMRs may use system designs or technologies that can co-exist with primary public safety use on a secondary, non-interference basis. Thus, the approach recommended herein would allow B/ILT and high-site SMR incumbents in the 806/816 - 851/861 block to evaluate local spectrum demand requirements and the realities of secondary status in that venue versus moving to new assignments at 700 MHz or 909 MHz. Incumbents could choose to take advantage of guaranteed replacement assignments on a first-come, first-served basis, or ~take their chances" _,on future relocation'spectrum availability. B/ILT Special Frequency Coordinator. The FCC should also create a separate B/ILT Realignment Frequency Coordinator (the aB/ILT Special Coordinator") to identify specific channel assignments for voluntary rel6ca~ions by B/ILT licensees and high-site traditional SMK systems in the reailocated 4 MHz of former SMR channels at 900 MHz and the 700 MHz former guard band. Specifically, the B/ILT Special Coordinator would be responsible for: (1) identifying specific channel assignments for traditional "noise-limited- SMR and B/ILT licenses voluntarily relocating from the lower 800 MHz channels to the new 700 MHz or 900 MHz co- primary B/ILT and high-site SMR channel block; (2) verifying that the new assignments will reduce or eliminate the potential for CMRS - public safety interference while ensuring that relocated licensees receive new licenses that are geographically and spectrally equal to or better than their original lidenses; and (3) assisting incumbents that must be relocated with carrying out their retuning obligations. Using a first-come, first-served licensing approach will encourage incumbent licensees to take advantage of this newly available spectrum and thereby facilitate voluntary relocation from the new public safety block, particularly in metropolitan areas where public safety licensees.~ill have the most urgent need for this additional spectrum. The B/ILT Special Coordinator should include representation from the B/ILT and SMR certified Frequency Coordinators: AMTA, the Industrial Telecommunications Association ("ITA"), the Personal Communications Industry Association ("PCIA") and the Utilities Telecommunications Council ('~UTC"). The B/ILT Special Coordinator would perform essentially the same functions for its constituency as the Public Safety Special Coordinator performs for public safety: identifying new channel locations for the incumbents being relocated, working with those individual incumbents to account for local propagation anomalies and special terrain factors, or facilitating other refinements or modifications required to complete the relocations. Advanced Technology B/ILT Systems. The Commission should consider requiring the B/ILT Special Coordinator to designate a portion of the new 900 MHz traditional SMR/B/ILT channei block for advanced technology B/ILT private systems. Some B/ILT licensees have acquired and operate advanced, multiple-site, frequency reuse communications systems using the same network architecture as CMRS systems. The FCC should examine whether the Special Coordinator should designate certain frequencies at 900 MHz for the development of such systems to prevent creating at 900 MHz the type of mixed and interleaved spectrum licensing that has created interference problems in the 800 MHz band. Channel Bandwidth at 900 MHz. The Commission should examine whether to retain the current 12.5 kHz channel bandwidth at 900 MHz. It could require all migrating B/ILT and analog SMRs to use 12.5 kHz equipment in the 900 MHz band, or it could permit the Special Coordinators to assign two adjacent channels to a licensee for every one 800 MHz channel to permit the licensee to continue to use 25 kHz equipment. The Commission would need to address whether it should take a different approach in relocating analog SMR systems, analog noise-limited B/ILT systems, or digital, frequency-reuse B/ILT relocasees. Incumbents being relocated should be encouraged' to make the most efficient use of this spectrum, either by FCC requirements or by steps taken by the Special Coordinator. Utility Company Licensees. Utility companies licensed on the 800 MHz B/ILT channels would be accommodated by relocation to the former 900 MHz SMR channels or former 700 MHz Guard band channel~. The 900 M~z channels are already interleaved with 5 MHz of 900 MHz spectrum allocated for private, internal use B/ILT systems; accordingly, this reallocation would create a 10 MHz block for B/ILT licensees, including utilities, as well as the remaining analog, traditional SMR systems. This reallocation of 900 MHz channels for co-primary B/ILT and traditional SMR services, coupled with the 4 MHz of 700 MHz guard band spectrum Nextel is making available, offers more spectrum than these licensees have available today at 800 MHz. This relocation would permit utility company licensees to expand their systems in the future, particularly those that provide communications for critical utility services. Comments recently filed in response to a request by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") point out that energy and waner companies, in particular, have special spectrum needs that closely parallel those of public safety entities. In light of this, the Commission should consider whether to reserve certain channels in the new 900 ~Hz B/ILT and high-site SMR spectrum block for the internal communications needs of critical infrastructure ~t~ility companies, such as water, gas, or electric utilities. ~ 'Implementation Timetable Give~"~-'-fi~'-f~¥-~-f'~D~-i-on of life safety communications creates for the well being of public safety personnel and the citizens they serve, the public interest requires that the 800 MHz realignment be completed as rapidly as practicable. It will not be possible, however, to retune all of the land mobile community at once. The following reallocation/retuning implementation plan balances these two considerations: ' ? The following rule changes should be effective upon Commission adoption of a Report and Order implementing the 800 MHz realignment plan: (1) reallocation of the 2020/2025 - 2'170/2175 MHz MSS spectrum to terrestrial mobile communications, and, as part of the spectrum swap, assignment (licensing) of this spectrum to Nextel through a nationwide license; (2) redesignation of the 762/764 - 792/794 MHz Guard band channels, and the 896/901 - 935/940 MHz SMR channels, to co-primary B/ILT and high-site SMR use; (3) establishment of the new 20 MHz http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaperfinal.txt 12/7/01 Page 14 of 2g Public Safety block at 806/816 - 851/861 MHz with a transition period to relocate all affected CMRS and public safety licensees, and with all incumbent B/ILT and hiHh- site SMR licensees in this spectrum converted to secondary status; and (4) establishment of the new advanced technology SM~ block at 816/824 - 861/869 MHz and assignment (licensing) of the 821/824 - 866/869 portion of it to Nextel. ? With the assistance of the Public Safety Special Coordinator, incumbent public safety NPSPAC licensees (821/824 - 866/869 MHz) would begin moving to the new 806/816 - 851/861 MHz public safety channel block as incumbents relocate in the priority order discussed below. At the same time, analog SMRs and B/ILT licensees in channels 1- 400 would commence voluntary relocation to the 900 MHz or 700 MHz bands, with the assistance of the B/ILT Special Coordinator, to clear channels 1 400 for ongoing public safety relocations. ? Once the NPSPAC channels are cleared, Nextel would complete relocating its remaining operations on channels 1 -'400 to the former NPSPAC channels or the upper 200 channels. The 800 MHz r~alignment and associated licensee relocations should be completed within 36 months of the effective date of a Report and Order adopting the realiHnment plan. The following relocation schedule gives priority first to relocations necessary to mitigate acute unresolved interference, and second to retuning licensees in areas most likely to experience CMRS - public safety interference: ? For markets with acute, unresolved CMRS - public safety interference, channel swaps and retuning.should be completed within 12 months of the effective date of the Report and Order; ? Channel swaps and retuning would be completed in all remaining top 30 Economic Areas (~EAs") within 24 months; ? Channel swaps and retuning should be completed in the top 80 EAs within 30 months; ? All remaining relocations and swaps completed within 36 months of Commission adoption of a Report and Order regarding the 800 MHz realignment plan. If at any time CMRS - public safety interference in any market cannot be satisfactorily controIted using short-term corrective measures (e.g., lower power, higher antenna height, modified frequency use at the. problem site), the public safety licensee should have the right to request that the Public Safety Special Coordinator advance the retuning of that entity and/or market. The Commission should empower the Public Safety Special Coordinator to require that' any such retuning project be completed within nine months or sooner, if practicable. VII. LEGAL AUTHORITY The Commission's authority to assign and reallocate spectrum and to relocate incumbent licensees derives from several provisions of the Act, including sections 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(r), and 316. These same provisions also authorize the Commission to convert non- relocating incumbents from primary to secondary status when necessary to advance the public interest. As discussed below, the Commission has exercised both types of authority in the past, and would face no legal obstacles to exercising such authority under the proposed 800 MHz realignment plan. A. Authority to Mandate Incumbent Relocation . On numerous occasions, the Commission has exercised its authority to require incumbent licensees to relocate to different parts of the spectrum when necessary to advance the public interest. For example, in 1965, the Commission reallocated Business Radio Service spectrum "as a matter of sound spectrum planning." In that case, the Commission required that private community antenna television systems ("CATV") relocate, at their own expense, from the spectrum allocated for Business Radio users to an adjacent band. Finding that CATV spectrum needs were growing, the Commission sought to accommodate future CATV needs by reallocating spectrum and dedicating it to CATV use, with the quid pro quo that existing licensees relocate themselves to the newly-allocated part of the band. More recently, in the Emerging Technologies proceeding, the Commission rea!located 220 MHz of spectrum in the 1.85 to 2.20 GHz band from private and common carrier'fixed microwave use to use by ~emerging technologies." While existing public safety fixed microwave licensees were initially allowed to remain in the band on a co-primary basis, the Commission reconsidered that decision and, on its own motion, determined that all microwave incumbents, includin~ public safety users, would be required to relocate. This decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court stated that the Commission's finding that "it is in the public interest to subject all incumbent . . . fixed , , relocation adequately microwave facilities including public safety licensees to mandatory ' " articulated a reasoned analysis, based on the record, to require the relocation. The Commission's authority to relocate public safety and digital SMR incumbents in the 800 MHz band is not diminished by the fact that portions of this spectrum were licensed through competitive bidding under Section 309(j) of the Act. Indeed, as section 309(j) itself makes clear, Congress intended licenses assigned by auction to be regulated no differently from licenses assigned by other means: Nothin~ in this subsection, or in the use of competitive bidding, shall- (A) alter spectrum allocation criteria and procedures established by the other proviszons of this Act; [or] ici diminish the authority of the Commission under the other provisions of this Act to regulate or reclaim spectrum licenses; [or] (D) be construed to convey any rights, including any expectation of renewal-of a license, that differ from the rights that apply to other licenses within the same service that were not issued pursuant to this subsection[.] Because the Commission's authority to regulate and reclaim spectrum extends to all licensees, including those that acquired licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission is fully empowered to require incumbents in the 800 MHz band to relocate as needed to further the public interest. The Commission also has authority to convert hold-over incumbent licensees to secondary status. Specifically, the Commission has previously granted incumbent licensees the option of either retai~ing their existing licensed channels on a secondary, non-interference basis or voluntarily relocating their operations on a preferential basis during an accommodation period. The Commission thus possesses the legal authority to grant this same option to incumbent B/ILT and traditional high-site SMR licensees currently operating in the 800 MHz band. B. The Ashbacker Doctrine and Section 309(j) Are Not Implicated by the 800 MHz Realignment Plan The proposed 800 MHz realignment plan is fully consistent with administrative law due process requirements, including the Ashbacker doctrine, as well as the competitive bidding provismons set forth in section 309(j) of the Act. The plan would entail the reallocation of certain spectrum bands and modifications of existing licenses pursuant to section 316 of the Act. Pursuant to the plan, incumbent licensees would effectively ~swap" spectrum, trading their current channel assignments for alternative assignments to eliminate the underlying causes of CMRS - public safety interference and allocate additional spectrum to public safety communications. Because these swaps of already-occupied frequencies would not require the Commission to issue any licenses to new licensees or for new services, and because the Commission may permissibly limit eligibility for spectrum licenses when doing so serves the public interest, the proposed plan would not trigger either the Ash_backer doctrine or section 309 (j) . Ashbacker Doctrine. In Ashbacker, the Supreme Court held that, if two bona fide applications for an open frequency are mutually exclusive, they are entitled to a comparative hearing. Ashbacker is only triggered when an "open" frequency is being assigned, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has' held that ~Ashbacker does not compe't the Commission to hold comparative hearings in order to approve channel exchanges[.]" In light of this holding, in previous situations where licensees have exchanged their current licenses for equivalent licenses using ~a different frequency, the Commission has concluded than section 316 of the kct authorizes such modifications. The proposed 800 MHz realignment plan contemplates precisely this kind of license exchange. Accordingly, with respect to all the spectrum that would be effectively ~swapped" under the proposed plan, the Ashbacker doctrine would not impair the Commission's authority, pursuant to section 316 of the Act, to relocate incumbent licensees to different spectrum assignments to resolve the CMRS - public safety interference issues described above. The Ashbacker doctrine likewise does not preclude the Commission from allocating additional spectrum to public safety servmces and, to make this possible, assigning 10 MHz of reallocated MSS spectrum to Nextel in exchange for spectrum Nextel would surrender as part of the realignment plan. As a long line of precedents demonstrates, Ashbacker does not prevent the FCC from "promulgat[ing] rules limiting eligibility to apply for a channel when such action Promotes the public interest, convenience and necessity.- Thus, because of the important public interest goals it would advance, the Commission would be free to promulgate rules that would effectively make Nextel the only eligible licensee of the 2020/2025 and 2t70/2175 MHz portion of the MSS'band. As the commercial licensee most interleaved with and adjacent to public safety ~i~ensees, Nextel is directly affected by any realignment plan that creates the separate public safety and commercial spectrum blocks necessary ~o mitigate 800 MHz CMRS - public safety interference. Nexte!'s cooperation in voluntarily relocating from the new public safety block, and voluntarily making spectrum available to relocate B/ILT and high-site SMR licensees from the public safety block, is an essential element of the realignment plan. The Commission has full authority to earmark and assign to Nextel the replacement channels necessary to make Nextel whole in this spectrum swap and make implementing the 800 MHz realignment plan possible. The realignment plan, in turn, will mitigate the problem of CMRS-Public Safety interference while making additional spectrum available for public safety communications. Section 309(j). Section 309(j)'of the Act authorizes the Commission to award ~initial~ spectrum licenses through the use o~ a competitive bidding system. Section 309(j) exempts from competitive bidding applications for public safety spectrum. The assignment of spectrum licenses to public safety services under an 800 MHz band realignment plan and the allocation of additional spectrum to public safety consequently would thus not trigger the section 309(j) competitive bidding procedures. Section 309(j) would likewise not be implicated by the proposed reallocation and redesignation of the 800 MHz spectrum used by private radio and SMR licensees. Instead of applying for "initial license[s]" under section 309(j) (1), these licensees would merely receive http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_final.txt 12/7/01 Page 16 of~22 licenses ~or replacement spectrum in exchange for the spectrum licenses they will surrender as part of the realignment plan. Accordingly, the reallocation proposal would not trigger the competitive bidding requirements of section 309(j) . This analysis is consistent with other cases in which the Commission has relocated wireless licensees from one frequency block to another comparable block without triggering section 309(j)'s competitive bidding requirements for initial licenses. The Commission recently held, for instance, that section 309(j) was not a valid basis for granting a Petition for Reconsideration of an earlier order mandating the relocation of Digital Electronic Message Service ("DEMS") licensees: Because its actions [to relocate DEMS licensees to new spectrum] were license modifications under authority of Section 316, and did not involve the grant of initial licenses, t~e Commission was not authorized under Section 309(j) of the Act to use auction procedures. Those auction procedures may only be used to select from among mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses. Accordingly, petitioners' reliance on Section 309(9) of the Act is misplaced. Like the relocated DEMS licensees, the incumbents affected by the proposed plan would be relocated under authority of section 316 of the Act, and not section 309(j) . VIII. MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS A. Effect on Pending MSS Rulemakings To implement effectively the realignment of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band and allocate additional spectrum to public safety, it will be necessary to reallocate the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz bands to terrestrial mobile services, and to assign that spectrum to Nextel in exchange for spectrum relinquished by Nextel for Heassignment to public safety communications services, B/ILT licensees and high-site SMR licensees. 'The Commission has already proposed, in a separate pending rulemaking (~Advanced Wireless Services Proceeding"), to reallocate a portion of the MSS spectrum in the. 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to support the introduction of new advanced mobile and fixed terrestrial wireless services (advanced wireless services), including third generation (3G) and future generations of wireless systems. In that proceeding, the Commission requested comments on various spectrum reallocation options that were intended to preserve sufficient spectrum for 2 GHz MSS operations and, at the same time, make available some of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum for advanced wireless services. For the reasons discussed herein, the Commission should reallocate the 2020/2025 and 2170-2175 MHz MSS frequency bands on a primary basis to terrestrial advanced mobile services. It should assign these frequency bands to Nextel in return for Nextel's swapping certain 700, 800 and 900 MHz spectrum for public safety purposes° These actions will serve the public interest by resolving CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band, addressing critical spectrum needs of the public safety services, and affording Nextel replacement spectrum for its use in providing terrestrial mobile services. B. Relocation of Incumbent Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Fixed Service Licensees in the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz Bands The MSS spectrum in the 2020/2025 MHz and 2170/2175 MHz bands that would be reallocated to terrestrial mobile services and assigned to Nextel as part of the 800 MHz realignment plan is currently used by Broadcast Auxiliary (~BAS") and Fixed Service ("FS") licensees, who also operate in other parts of the MSS band. In the Commission's proceeding to allocate 2 GHz spectrum to MSS, it adopte~ a plan to relocate BAS and FS licensees operating on this spectrum to other spectrum bands. The current BAS relocation plan consists of a complex, two-phase, market-staggered approach that would relocate gradually incumbent BAS licensees over many years as MSS systems became operational. Incumbent FS licensees would be relocated to the extent they received harmful interference from MSS, but would not be required to relocate if they could successfully share spectrum with MSS. Under the plan the Commission adopted, MSS licensees would compensate incumbent BAS and FS licensees for the costs incurred in relocating. As described above, the Commission has recently sought comment in its Advanced Wireless Services Proceeding on whether to reallocate some portions of the MSS band to advanced terrestrial wireless services. In doing so, it recognized that the current phased relocation of BAS might nou be practical if such a reallocation plan were adopted because advanced wireless services would be deployed faster than MSS operations. It consequently sought comment on (1) how the current BAS and FS relocation plan would have to be modified to accommodate a reallocation of spectrum for terrestrial wireless use; (2) what the relocation responsibilities of new MSS and terrestrial wireless entrants would be; and (3) whether new MSS and terrestrial wireless entrants would share the relocation costs on a pro rata basis. The Commission will need ~o address the same issues with respect to the 2020/2025 MHz and 2170/2175 MHz bands that would be reallocated and assigned to Nextel under an 800 MHz realignment plan. In doing so, the Commission should ensure that the different users of the MSS band share BAS and FS relocation costs on an equitable basis. It should also seek to expedite the current BAS and PS relocation process, at least with respect to the 2020/2025 MHz and 2170/2175 MHz bands, in order to implement the 800 MHz realignment plan under the timetable described above. Because of the urgent need to resolve CMRS - public safety interference in the 800 MHz band and to allocate additional spectrum to public safety, the Commission should gzve priority to adopting a modified BAS and FS relocation plan for the 2020/2025 MHz and 2170/2175 MHz bands 'so that these bands can be clea~ed in an expeditious manner. Relocation issues involving other portions of the MSS band should be deferred~to the extent practicable for consideration in the Commission's pending Advanced Wireless Services Proceeding. httlc://wireless~ses/O 12 -w ' e' _ - :, ~ -~.t ........ IX. CONCLUSION Given the critically important life-safety services supported by public safety communications systems, the Commission should implement remedial actions promptly. Commercial-public safety radio interference will increase unless the shared, mixed and interleaved licensing of the 800 MHz land mobile radio band is realigned and commercial licensees and public safety communications licensees are relocated to different separate channel blocks. ' Public safety communicators also urgently need additional spectrum. This White Paper sets forth a comprehensive plan to address these critical matters in an expeditious, effective manner. The Commission should move rapidly to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in substantial accord with the 800 MHz realignment plan discussed herein, so that it can receive the comments, suggestions and ideas 'of all interested parties and, so informed, enact the rule changes needed to mitigate CMRS - public safety interference at 800 MHz while protecting the fundamental interests of all affected licensees, and at the same time double the near-term spectrum available at 800 MHz for public safety communications systems. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Respectfully submitted, Senior Vice President - Government Affairs and Chief Regulatory Officer By, Robert S. Foosaner November 21, 2001 In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12460, 1 (1996). Id. See also In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 24 (1998) (~First Report and Order"). See Petition for Rule Making by the Public Safety Wireless Network (~PSWN") to Promote Allocation of Spectrum for Public Safety Agencies and Other Matters to Address Communications Needs Through 2010, filed September 14, 2001 (the ~PSWN Petition"). PSWN Petition at 4. For instance, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently introduced and then steered, through his committee a bill (S. 1631) that would mandate a 90-day federal study of the "resources that are needed for development of an effective nationwide communications system for emergency response personnel." The need for new resources was recognized even before September 11. On July 13, 2001, for instance, twelve members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to the Chairman. and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations requesting $2 miliion to aid in the development of a county-wide interoperable public safety communications network for Los Angeles County. "Federal Communications Commission Announces Creation of Homeland Security Policy Council," released November 14, 2001. In fact, as discussed infra, ~mature" cellular systems use advanced dynamic frequency assignment algorithms that may not be able to account for CMRS - public safety interference. Even worse, cellular systems using advanced, digital broadband transmission technologies, such as CDMA, may not be able to eliminate specific channels that create interference. See Exhibit A for a series of charts depicting the evolution of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio spectrum band plan from 1974 to the present. See also An Inquiry into the Future use of the Frequency Band 806-960 MHz, Second Report and Order, 46 FCC 2d 752 (1974) ("1974 Licensing Order"). See id. at 12, 17. In a trunked system, two or more channels are linked with a computer that automatically assigns the first available channel to a user. In a conventional system, channel access is manually controlled and each user must search manually for a vacanu channel. Conventional systems were simpler and cheaper to operate, but trunkinq is a more efficient technology because it allows a greater number of mobiles to be accommodated on the same number of channels. See id. at 767-78, 45-48. For example, a five-channel trunked system would be assiqned channels 401, 441, 4817 521 and 561. This exacerbated the scrambling of different licensees on adjacent, near-adjacent and even the same channels (with specified co-channel separation) throughout the 806/821 - 851/866 MHz portion of the 800 MHz band. See 1974 Licensing Order at 772-73, 71-73. The area of interference can be as small as a few feet to as much as one-quarter of a mile from the commercial operator's base station site. Nextel Partners, Inc. ("Nextel Partners") is a partially-owned affiliate of Nextel, which provides 80D MHz iDEN digital services in 100 secondary and tertiary markets throughout the United States. Nexte! Partners utilizes the same mix Of 800 MHz spectrum and faces the same potential interference issues that Nextel does in the 800 MHz band. See Letter, dated October 30, 2001, from Spurgeon R. Eismeier, Sr., Central Services http ://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_final.txt 12/7/01 Page 18 of,22 Officer, Anne Arundel County, to Lawrence R. Krevor, Nextel Communications, Inc. The group included Motorola, Inc., the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International ("APCO"), PSWN, CTIA, and Nextel. See FCC Press Release, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Best Practices Guide for Avoiding Interference Between Public Safety and Commercial Wireless 800 MHz Communications Systems (issued February 9~ 2001). See Letter from D'wana R. Terry, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, to Mr. Joe Kurran, Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency, dated September 13, 2001. 47 U.S.C. § 151. In general, the magnitude of the disparity between public safety and commercial signal levels, the number of channels being used by each operator, the height and power of the affected stations, the degree of antenna downtilt and local topographic and propagation characteristics can all affect whether interference occurs. Moreover, some models of public safety receivers exhibit sub-optimal intermodulation, adjacent channel and spurious-response rejection capabilities, thereby increasing the potential for CMRS - public safety interference. It would be significantly more expensive to build different receivers for the interleaved 70 public safety channels only, or for the NPSPAC channels only, .thereby increasing infrastructure costs for publicly funded systems. It would also prevent a single system from using both lower 70 and NPSPAC channels, unless the user carried two separate handsets. Public safety handsets are able to receive and transmit on General Category channels, the lower 80 interleaved SMR channels, and the upper 200 SMR channels as well as the 70 interleaved public safety channels and NPSPAC channels, because public safety systems were licensed in ~he past on all of these channels. As discussed above, Public Safety communications systems have traditionally been designed to enable communications at low signal levels (as low as -105 dBm or less) until the desired signal cannot be distinguished from the background thermal noise in the receiver. This design enables public safety agencies to provide coverage throughout their jurisdictions - often large geographic areas -- with one or at most a few base stations (using simulcast rather than frequency reuse design) -- and therefore minimal expenditure of public funds. Interference-limited systems use multiple, low power base stations ~nd sophisticated frequency coordination to control intrasystem interference while maximizing user capacity.. Signal levels immediately around low-height CMRS sites are typically much stronger (e.g., -25 to -40 dBm) than those from more distant high-height public safety transmitters -70 to -100 dBm or less). In the earlier days Of cellular development, this happened infrequently because cellular antennas were located at high enough elevations that the distance to the ground sufficiently attenuated the signals so that they rarely "overpowered" adjacent public safety signals. As cellular use has grown, cellular carriers are building smaller cells with lower sites to maximize frequency reuse; the lower antennas produce a stronger signal at ground level. As. an example, a commercial SMR signal at 864 MHz can combine with a cellular Ar band signal at 870 MHz to produce inter modulation products at 858 MHz and at 876 MHz. The 876 MHz product falls in the cellular A-ban~ and therefore is not germane to this discussion; however, the 858 MHz signal falls in the 851-869 MHz band and could be licensed to a public safety system. If the public safety system is operating on 858 MHz, and if the SMR and cellular A-band providers are colocated on a tower or building in its service area, the public safety mobile and portable units could experience interference in the immediate vicinity of the colocated CMRS site due to the relatively strong signals from the commercial SMR and cellular A-band operator creating intermodulation interference in the public safety receiver. Wideband noise interference usually becomes visible only after intermodulation interference is eliminated. It should be noted that commercial SMR and cellular operators are not the only contributors to a higher noise floor. Other RF sources, such as ~active" television reception systems, cellular antennae flashing light displays, and computer RF emissions also increase the noise floor and can interfere with public safety communications. For example, in 1990, 19 MHz of SMR spectrum was exhausted in most major markets despite serving only about one million users. The subsequent evolution of SMRs to digital, cellular-like, frequency reuse technology dramatically increased their capacity enabling the same 19 MHz to support more than eight million users - an eightfold capacity increase over the 1994 industry total. See Industrial Communications, October 13, 1989; Implementation of Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Annual Report and Analys.is of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile 'Services, First Report, 10 FCC Rcd. 8844, 8855-57 35-39 (1995) (~First Competition Report"). 47 U.S.C. § 337(a) . See In'the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and' Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (200O). Id. at 12. PSWAC Final Report, September 11, 1996. First Report and Order at 2, citing Report and Order, ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC Rcd 22, 953 (1997). Analog broadcast television stations, including those operating in the 700 MHz band (UHF Channels 60-69) are permitted by statute to. continue operations until their markets are converted to digital television, which is not scheduled to occur until at least December 31, 2006. See 47 U.S.C. § 337(e) . The Commission must extend this date in certain circumstances, including the lack of significant penetration of digital television within a market. See id. at § 309(j) (14) . See also In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, rag~ 11~ OlZZ and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 99-158, FCC 01-258 (released Sept. 17, 2001) (adopting initiatives to expedite the clearance of broadcas5 television operations in UHF Channels 60-69). Supra. at p. 3 and n. 3. PSWN Petition at 10. Id. at 15. Id. at 14. Equipment meeting the specialized public safety needs of the APC0 25 standard is already avaitabls for 800 MHz use and is well along in development for adjacent 700 MHz channels. In short, expanding the amount of exclusive, contiguous public safety spectrum at 800 MHz adjacent to the new 700 MHz public safety allocation is a far more effective and efficient long term plan than establishing additional public safety spectrum in another band, particularly in the higher bands with propagation characteristics requiring more infrastructure to meet ubiquitous public safety coverage requirements. This reallocation plan takes into account Nextel's consolidation over the past decade of the majority of commercially-available 800 MHz land mobile radio spectrum. The fact that one CMRS licensee in this band, Nextel, holds many of the EA licenses and site-by-site licenses on the proposed new 20 MHz public safety block at 800 MHz, significantly simplifies the incumbent retuning and relocations necessary to effectuate an 800 MHz Land Mobile Service band realignment. See Exhibit B for a chart depicting the proposed new 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band plan, and a chart depicting all of the reallocations and redesignations necessary to carry out the proposed realignment. A total of five MHz of this 10 MHz block is currently allocated for SMR use with the remaining five MHz allocated for B/ILT use. The SMR and B/ILT channels are allocated on an alternating, interleaved basis. Because all licensees will initially be using comparable noise- limited system architecture, this interleaved spectrum does not pose an interference risk. To the extent that these licensees desire to migrate eventually to interference-limited systems, the Frequency Coordinators for 900 MHz can assign these channels to separate such uses. Any B/ILT licensees remaining on these channels after a voluntary relocation period would have secondary status' only, i.e., they may not interfere with public safety communications and must accept any interference resulting from the primary public safety operations. The Commission should establish a filing window for first-come, first-served incumbent relocation applications to encourage these incumbent licensees to migrate to the largely vacant 900 MHz current SMR spectrum or the 700 MHz spectrum. S%e 47 U.S.C. § 158(d) (2) (FCC m~y waive payment of an application fee "for good cause shown, where such action would promote the public interest"). For example, while it' has been possible to undertake-"careful frequency coordination" in some cases, it is increasingly difficult to do so in the current environment as the result of two trends. First, local jurisdictions have become increasingly interested in requiring CMRS operators to collocate on the same transmission towers. This collocation has led to increased combinations of signals by commercial operators and thus increased interference to public safety communications. Second, CMRS operators are now deploying automated frequency use algorithms to maximize the moment-by-moment efficiency of their spectrum use. This development makes it more difficult to account for a particular public safety system through frequency coordination, particularly if multiple CMRS systems eack employing automated assignment programs need to be coordinated. Given both these trends, frequency coordination is impractical at best when CMRS channel use restrictions are required to avoid IM interference with public safety frequencies, particularly when multiple CMRS carriers are involved. A guard band is required on the base-to-mobile link. It is normally not required on the mobile-to-base link because (a) the signal levels from CMRS mobile transmitters are generally significantly smaller than the signal levels from public safety mobile transmitters, and (b) the public-safety base station receivers are generally located where they cannot receive destructive interference from CMRS mobile transmitters. Nonprofit associations certified by the Commission for frequency coordination include: Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. ("APCO"), Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (~AASHTO"), Forestry Conservation Communications Association ("FCCA") and International Municipal Signal Association ( "IMSA" ). This process may be simplified by simply transferring in its entirety the existing NPSPAC assignmentS in a regional planning area to a comparable spectrum sub-block in the new 20 MHz public safeuy channel block. This White Paper recommends that the Commission consult with the public safety community, existing frequency coordinators, and equipment manufacturers to determine the most efficacious way to identify relocation assignments for NPSPAC incumbents. Nextel has expended, on a voluntary basis, significant resources for modified anuennas, special combiners, custom-reade filters, modified base stations, interference drive testing, szgnal strength mapping, intermodutation prediction and analysis, and interference monitoring, as well as tens of thousands of man hours in carryin~ out these activities, to identify the source or sources of CMRS - public safeSy 'interference and to develop and implement fixes. AT&T Wireless and other cellular carriers are also incurring similar costs and overhead uo mitigate interference on a case-by-case basis. Nextel would provide this contribution contingent upon the Commission's adoption of a Final Order: (1) creating a new digital advanced SMR channel block as described herein at 816/824 - 861/869 MHz; (2) assigning to Nextel licenses for the 6 MHz of spectrum (the current http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 1112 l_whitepaper fmal.txt 12/7/01 Page 20 of 22, NPSPAC channels) in the new advanced SMR channel block; and (3) assigning to Nextel nationwide licenses for a contiguous 10 MHz of MSS spectrum at 2.1 MHz reallocated for terrestrial commercial mobile use. In addition to this contribution to public safety retuning costs, Nextel will also bear the costs of its own relocation out of channels 1- 400 to the new digital SMR spectrum block. Nextel holds many of the EA and site-by-site liqenses in this spectrum. Moreover, Nextel will have approximately 2 MHz less spectrum at 800 MHz at the completion of retuning and will have to commence construction of a 2.1 MHz network in lieu of its planned developments at 700 MHz and 900 MHz. Accordingly, Nextel will incur more relocation costs than any other licensee under the 800 MHz realignment plan. B/ILT and traditional SMR licensees will contribute to this effort by paying their own costs of relocation. Many B/ILT users will be able to simply retune their systems to their new allocated frequencies, thus keeping their costs to a minimum. Arguably, howe~er, B/ILT users also will benefit from access to interference-free contiguous spectrum, particularly if they choose to relocate to their new homes at 700 MHz or 900 MHz, and therefore also should contribute to the fund to relocate public safety. In addition, the Commission should support before the Congress an appropriations request to assist public safety communications entities with the costs of retuning to carry out the 800 MHz realignment plan. Such a public-private partnership would be similar to the many highly successful federal programs that offer matching funds to stimulate state or local government participation in essential programs. For example, the Interstate Highway System was originally conceived as a national defense program to speed the movement of army and other defense forces and material throughout the country; the federal government offered 70 percent funding, provided the states matched it with the remaining 30 percent. See Richard F. Weingroff, Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: 'Creating the Interstate System, Public Roads On-Line at 9 (1996) <http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm>; Financing Federal-Aid Highways, Appendix G: Federal Share and Availability for Significant Programs 44 (U.S. Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, May 1992) (noting that the federal government · currently funds 80 percent of the interstate system). Urban mass transit, hospital construction, irrigation projects, rural electrification and many other governmental programs use this type of shared funding approach. See, e.g., id. (mass transit); Center for Public Service, Government's 50 Greatest Endeavors: Enhancing the Nation's Health Care Infrastructure, p. 1-2, Nov. 12, 2001 <www.brook.edu/gs/cps/50ge/endeavors/healthcare.htm> (hospital construction); Larry Todd, Bureau of Reclamation, Statement on S. 2881: Small Reclamation Water Resources Act of 2000, July 25, 2000 <www.doi.gov/ocl/2000/s2881.htm> (irrigation projects); Office of Industrial Technologies, NICE3, Nov. 12, 2001 <www.oit.doe.gov/nice3> (describing the cost- sharing program created by the Department of Energy to promote energy efficiency and stating that non-federal funds must account for at least 50 percent of the total cost of the project). See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of 8MR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463, 1510, 79 (1995), aff'd by Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd. 17556~ 17577, 38. (1999). In most cases replacement equipment will not be necessary because existing public safety system hardware can be returned to the new public safety channel block. Some of these incumbents.may choose over time to take service from commercial providers and "surrender" their secondary channel assignments. For example, some utility companies are implementing high power, high site iDEN systems, to obtain more capacity and robust in-building coverage. These systems and high-site, high power traditional analog SMR and B/ILT system designs should be able to coexist with little or no special planning or frequency coordination. Alternatively, the Special Coordinator should create set-aside spectrum for these types of systems, or the FCC should impose operating requirements or other limiting parameters to ensure compatibility. See Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications .and Information Administration, Request for Comment on Energy, Water and Railroad Service Providers' Spectrum Use Study, 66 FR 18447 (2001). NTIA has been directed by Congress to prepare a report by December 21, 2001 on the spectrum needs of these entities, and, six months after NTIA's report has been released the Commission similarly has been directed by Congress to submit and report on the actions that could be taken by the Commission to address the needs identified by NTIA. The B/ILT Special Coordinator could set-aside part of the 900 MHz channel block for critical infrastructure radio communications systems used by public utility operators. Such systems could include wireless communications to dispatch service and maintenance personnel and help control, monitor and maintain generating systems, electric grids, gas pipelines, water distribution systems and similar critical utility operations. Under these circumstances, a voluntary negotiating period in which to reach agreement on a r~tuning proposal could delay substantially the solution and thus would not be in the public interest. As discussed previously, Nextel already holds nearly all of the incumbent EA and site- by-site licenses in the current 816/821.- 861/866 MHz portion of the new advanced SM~ block and would retain these licenses. The Public Safety Special Coordinator would notify the B/ILT Special Coordinator so that any necessary moves of B/ILT and analog SMR stations could be completed to permit the relocations necessary to eliminate the interference. 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 303(c) , 303(f), 303(r), and 316. Amendment of the Commission's_Rules Relative to the Licensing of Microwave Radio l~age z I oI zz Stations Used to Relay Television Signals to Community Antenna Television Systems, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1 FCC 2d 897, 32 (~1965 Reallocation Order"). 1965 Reallocation Order 35. Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886, 1 (1992) (~Emerging Technologies Order"). Ultimately the Commission allocated this spectrum for PCS. Id. 26. Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 1943, 34 (1994) . Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). 47 U.S.C. § 309(j) (6). See also Applications of TV Active, LLC et al. for Consent to the Assignment of Licenses in the 218-219 MHz Service, Order on Reconsideration, DA 01-2503, FCC File No. 0000334630, 2001 WL 1312891, 21, n.70 (Oct. 26, 2001) (~Section 309(j) (6) (C) and (D) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j) (6) (C)-(D), makes clear that the use of competitive bidding in spectrum allocation does not diminish the Commission's authority to regulate spectrum licenses."). See, e.g., Establishment of a Spectrum Utilization Policy for the Fixed and Mobile Services' Use of Certain Bands between 947 MHZ and 40 GHz, First Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 82-334, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1001 (1983) (12 GHz incumbent Operational Fixed Service licensees given option of retaining their existing licensed facilities on a secondary basis to Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, or relocating their operations on a preferential basis durin¢ a five-year accommodation period) (citing, inter alia, sections 4(i), 303[c), and 303(r) of the Act). Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945) ("Ashbacker"). 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). 47 U.S.C. § 316(a) (1) ("Any station license or construction permit may be modified by the Commission either for a limited time or for the duration of the term thereof, if, in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public interest"). Commercial users would swap their current licenses in return for alternative spectrum licenses providing comparable replacement spectrum in order to help eliminate interference to 800 MHz public safety communications systems. For example, Nextel would swap a total of 16 MHz on which it holds licenses today - 8 MHz from 800 MHz and 4 MHz each from 700 MHz and 900 MHz - and will receive 16 MHz in return - 10 MHz from 2.1 GHz MSS and 6 MHz from the 821/824 - 866/869 NPSPAC channels. B/ILT licensees would likewise swap their 800 MHz licenses for comparable 700 MHz or 900 MHz licenses to facilitate ~he interference- resolving 800 MHz spectrum realignment, while public safety licensees in the NPSPAC channels are simply exchanging those licenses for comparable spectrum rights in-the new consolidated 806/816 - 851/861 MHz public safety channel block. Ashbacker, 326 U.S. at 332. Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 949 F.2d 405, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1991). See also Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations and Section 73,622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television Broadcast Stations (Buffalo, New York), Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 11856, 12 (1999) ("Channel Swap Order") ("in the case of channel exchanges, the rule of Ashbacker does not apply because the channels are occupled") . See, e.g. Channel Swap Order. Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class Modifications by Application, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 4735, 16 (1993) (citing U.S.v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956)). See also Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 928 F.2d 428, 439 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (the FCC may reject, without a hearing, applications that do not meet valid eligibility requirements); Amendmen~ of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification of FM Broadcast Licenses to Higher Class Co-channel or Adjacent Channels, Report and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 114, 17 (1986) (~The Commission can promulgate rules limiting eligibility to apply for a newly allotted channel ~n circumstances where, in its determination, such action promotes the public interest, convenience and necessity."). See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j) (1) (~If, consistent with the obligations described in paragraph (6) (E), mutually, exclusive applications are accepted for any initial license or construction permit, then, except as provided in paragraph (2), the Commission shall grant the license or permit to a qualified applicant through a system of competitive bidding that meets the requirements of this subsection."). 47 U.S.C. § 309(j) (2) (A). Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service from the 18 GHz Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 15147, 59 (1998) (citations omitted). See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commissions Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile-and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 00-258 (Aug. 20, 2001) (~2 GHz MO&O and FNPRM"). See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocase Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile SatelliEe Service, Second Report and Order and Second http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/O 11121-whitepaper_final.txt 12/7/01 Page 22 of 22, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 95018, 15 FCC Rcd. 12315, 12326-27 (2000). 2 GHz MO&O and FNPRM at 32-34. 52 -59- Public Facility Reviews Page 1 of 1 ~Pri_~c?_ ~Willia. . ~_C~o_?nt_y.. Governm~, _ ...~ -, _e_~t~V~.i_,r~.g.!,nia_ , = · Feedback Form · E-mail Planning Planning Office703.792.6830 ·Announcements · Site Map a ~[I] I[I g ;.'~-I ITl~=~{~] I11 I[I ~ ~ I~'~a [I] I] I] Ia It[~a ~3 [{~E ~ ~a I[I I I1[I I a [I] ~[E ~ ~j I I[~ ~ ~ [~] ~ I I[I E~. Public Facilities'Reviews Virginia law requires all public facilities, such as telecommunication towers, water tanks, schools, and sewer lines, to be consistent with the Iocality's Comprehensive Plan. In some instances, the proposed facility is adequately shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and no further review is required. However, if the Comprehensive Plan fails to adequately show the location, character and extent of the proposal, a Public Facilities Review is. required. Applicants for telecommunications facilities are required to submit additional information showing that the proposal will not impact the County's 800 MHz public radio system. The requirements are detailed in the public facility review application*. Go to the Association of Public-Safety Communications (APSC) web site* to certify that the proposal is consistent with best practices (BPs), "avoiding interference between public safety wireless communications systems and commercial wireless communications at 800 MHz." Additionally, once a Public Facility is approved for a telecommunications facility, a site plan is required to be submitted to the Planning Office. The checklist for telecommunications facilities identifies minimum requirements for site plan submission. The Long Range Division of the Office of Planning reviews all applications for' Public Facilities Reviews. The initial review by staff will determine whether an administrative decision can be made by letter for projects that appear to be intended by one or more elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The administrative decision will become final unless the Planning Commission requires a public hearing within 60 days of its receipt of the administrative hearing. * application forms and APSCBPs are in PDF format. ~ Download Acrobat Reader shareware to view the forms. If it is not clear whether the proposed project was intended under the Comprehensive Plan, staff will schedule a public hearing for the project by the Planning Commission. For further information, please contact the Long Range Planning Division, Prince William County Planning Office. This page last updated on 11/02/01 htm ://www.co.t~rince-william.va.us/r~lannine/Descritot/oubrev.htm 12/12/01 Page 1 of 1 City of Ontario California Ordinance prohibiting interference to 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System Sec. 9-1.3289. Antennas and'Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. (e) No existing or future wireless communications facilities shall interfere with any public safety radio communications systems including, but not limited to, the 800 MHZ radio system operated by the West End Communication Authority which provides public safety communications during emergencies and natural disasters. Wireless communications facilities, as referred to herein, include, but are not limited to, facilities as defined in the Development Code and any other satellite dish, antenna, cellular phone facility and similar wireless communicatiOn structure (collectively referred to as "Facilities"). The Facilities' operator and/or property owner is responsible for compliance with these performance standards. If any such Facilities are found to interfere with a public safety radio communications system, the Facilities operator and/or property owner shall immediately cease operation of the Facilities. Operation of the Facilities shall only be allowed to resume upon removal or other resolution of the. interference to the satisfaction of the City. Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 38771, a violation of these performance standards constitutes a public nuisance per se. (Amended by Ord. 2680, eft. March 4, 1999, as amended by § 2, Ord. 2715, eft. June 20, 2000) Last update: October 5, 2001 Send us your Comments, suggestions, etc. Return to Ordinance Page http://www.rfsolutions.com/ont-intf, htm 12/12/01 Signal Booster Ordinances and related FCC information: Page 1 of 2 ,Signal Booster Ordinances Interference Ordinances and FCC Information This page lists files of interest to system designers, users or prospective users of Signal Boosters (a.k.a. BDA's) and in-building integrators. NOTICE: While we periodically update the FCC information here, it is no substitute for the latest inlbrmation available from the FCC direct, your frequency coordinator or FCC. lawyer. WE ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THIS INFORMATION NOR ANYTHING RESULTING FROM IT'S USE. Be sure and check the FCC Links at the bottom of this page for additional information sources. WANTED: PLEASE TELL US OF OTHER RELATED ORDINANCES WE CAN ADD TO THIS SITE LIST · City'of Burbank California: Signal Booster ordinance. · City of Folsom(Sacramento county) California: Signal Booster ordinance. · City of Roseville California: Signal Booster ordinance. · City of Ontario California: Signal Booster ordinance. · City of Ontario California: Ordinance Restricting 800 MHz Interference. · City of Scottsdale Arizona: Signal Booster ordinance. · Broward County Florida: Ordinance Restricting Obstruction of Radio Signals. · Grapevine Texas: Signal Booster Ordinance. · City of Boston Mass: Signal Booster Ordinance. · FCC Rules for Signal Boosters: Part 90 · FCC Rules For Signal Boosters: Part 22 · FCC Rules for Signal Boosters: Part 101 · FCC Rules for In-Tunnel/underground Communications. Part 15.211. · Public Safety 220 MHz license application information · FCC Notice: 220 MHz channels Released Exclusively for Public Safety. FCC/Government Related links: FCC Home Page Federal Register (New rules, Notices, etc.) http://www.rfsolutions.com/£cc.htm 12/12/01 December 22, 2000 The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III Govemor of Virginia The Honorable John H. Chichester Chairman, Senate Finance Committee The Honorable Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. The Honorable V. Earl Dickinson Co-Chairmen, House Appropriations Committee Dear Governor Gilmore and Chairmen: As directed by Item 491, paragraph D, of Chapter 1073, 2000 Acts of Assemblyi enclosed for your review and consideration is the Final Report on the Implementation of the Statewide Shared Land Mobile Radio System. While this report is being transmitted later than originally scheduled, the additional time has proven to be a useful investment. On November 2, a Virginia delegation including representatives of the Finance, Public Safety, and Technology Secretariats visited Florida for an intensive discussion with that state's officials on the recently executed public/private shared services contract for their statewide land mobile radio system. The' valuable information gained from that meeting, and the subsequent evaluation of the applicability of Florida's experiences to Virginia's needs, a~ignific~._.n~!~y~i~n~a.~_'nga~stro~q~ng consemus am 'ong- ~ ~a~rtieapan~-.s o~- -- e i e~dmmendations contained~nth~--~ccomp~y~~.~~' In that regard, I would also like to acknowledge the significant contributions made to this report by the staffs of the Departments of State Police and Information Technology, and the Offices of the Secretaries of Finance, Public Safety and Technology. Sincerely, NJS/Ih Enclosure c: The Honorable Donald W. Upson The Honorable Gary K. Aronhalt The Honorable Ronald L. Tillett John M. Bennett Rebecca L. Covey N. Jerry Simonoff Scarce spectrum resources will be carefully utilized, and used efficiently. The maximum use of the currently licensed radio frequencies is extremely important. There will be flexibility in shifting capacity resources (channels) to areas of peak activity on an ad-hoc basis. The Systems Integrator shall provide and guarantee required coverage, in the manner specified and tested as described in the procurement documentation. In addition, the Systems Integrator shall guarantee existing radio users within the Commonwealth will not be interfered with. The LMR system will be designed to work in th~4 .MI-Iz). b~and. The expectation is that the following activities and criteria will be specifically included as part of the evaluation: The offerors shall have available for testing during the offering evaluation period, equipment that will demonstrate the ability to provide both infrastructure and Subscriber equipment in the VHF band. Fixed repeater equipment shall be available to demonstrate the ability to transmit at the ERP and input power levels allowed by the Commonwealth's licenses. Ancillary equipment such as a vehicular repeater will be available for testing in sufficient quantities that the operational characteristics of .multiple responding vehicles may be ascertained. The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to operate with the existing VSP infrastructure and vehicular repeaters, as well as demonstrate the backward capabilities of the offered equipment. Subscriber equipment shall be available in sufficient quantities that the operational characteristics of equipment including group operation, operation in an interference environment, and operation in a low signal environment may be demonstrated and tested. Infrastructure (control and repeater) equipment shall be available and installed by the offeror at a site of the Commonwealth's Chbosing in the VHF band using narrowband Commonwealth licensed frequencies to demonstrate the above operations. · The offeror shall demonstrate single site trunked operations. The technology will be evaluated in part on its ability to meet or to exceed co- and adjacent-channel rejection specifications currently available for NBFM Virginia STARS Project Page 3 of 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATEWIDE SHARED LAND MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM FINAl, REPORT Submitted to The Governor of Virginia, and Chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees By the Department of Technology Planning Commonwealth of Virginia December 2000 Digital LMR system users will communicate with base unit transmitters located around the state. These base units will be interconnected with a Wide Area Network (WAN) backbone, using the upgraded State Police microwave network and other available networks. Emerging OrganizationalfFinancing Trends Traditionally, public organizations have viewed the implementation of land mobile radio systems as public works projects. An engineering firm is hired to conduct the necessary studies and design work, and construction of the system is then contracted out. The resulting system is then entirely owned and operated by the public entity. More recently, government agencies have begun to look at other options for acquiring and operating LMR services. The reasons for exploring other options vary by situation but generally are based on two major factors: escalating capital costs and technology enhancements. Increasing interest in exploring the potential efficiencies of outsourcing various services at all levels of government, as well as other forms of public/private partnerships, is also a factor. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), a joint initiative of the federal Departments of Justice and Treasury, has become a frequently cited source of information on alternative funding arrangements for public safety communications. Among other activities, PSWN commissioned two studies of funding mechanisms for public safety radio systems. Among the viable alternatives PSWN recommends for consideration are shared multi-jurisdictional systems, partnerships between a public agency or jurisdiction and a private entity, shared infrastructures (i.e., towers and other network components), use of commercial services for non-mission critical communications, and cooperative (multi-agency) procurements. Vendors in the public safety communications 'marketplace have' also become more' active in exploring alternative organizational and financing arrangements for LMR systems. Responding to the increasing interest among state and local governments in considering such options, some vendors are energetically marketing alternative organizational/financing plans. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) represents state and local practitioners in the field from across the country. APCO national office staff indicate that almost every state of which they are aware are investigating alternative funding and operational arrangements for their statewide radio systems. Examples cited include projects in various stages of development in California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin. Three illustrations of alternative arrangements, from Florida, South Carolina, and Utah, are highlighted below. Florida. Begun ten years ago, the original plan for the multi-agency Florida Statewide Law Enforce~~ment Radio System was for the system to .be owned and operated by the state. 'After completing 35% of the network at a cost of $120 million, the state estimated that a complete system would cost $549 million in build out costs and $20 million annually in maintenance. Florida then decided to look at other options. In September of this year, the state agreed to enter into a combination public/private partnership/service agreement with a communications vendor. The vendor will build out the remaining portions of the network within 36 months and assume ownership responsibilities and obligations for the entire network. The state will pay approximately $40 million up front and an annual flat rate of approximately $15 million for 20 years. The state will also receive 15 percent of the revenues from other users of the infrastructure. The total cost to the state under the service agreement is '$365 million. Florida's Office of Technology, 'which has extensive radio communications experience, is assuming the state's management responsibilities under the partnership arrangement. A statutorily created multi-agency user group, the Joint Task Force (JTF), previously managed the project but now provides advice on user satisfaction, needs, and similar issues. A Commonwealth delegation that included the Secretary of Finance, the Deputy Secretaries of Technology and Public Safety, and representatives from the Departments of State Police and Planning and Budget, recently visited with Florida executive and legislative officials to obtain more details on this approach. The group learned that while there are some fundamental differences in the Florida and Virginia systems, there were some lessons to be learned. Because of FCC license restrictions at the time (1985), Florida was abandoning the VHF frequency range to build a new system in the 800-megahertz range from the ground up. This range has limited coverage area compared to VHF and required over 100 additional tower sites by most estimates. In addition, the State of Florida subjects itself to local zoning and land-use restrictions, and towers needed to be sited on environmentally sensitive protected lands. The user group managed the system, directing the activities of the single equipment Vendor and the Department of Management Services (a combination of Virginia's Departments of General Services and Information Technology), which was responsible for engineering, tower site acquisition and tower construction. Florida was also building only the infrastructure, with the responsibility for end-user equipment (mobile and portable radios) assigned to each agency. Dedicated funding of approximately $15 million per year was derived from a $1 annual tax on motor vehicle and marine vessel registrations. Estimates of sp_ir~al_ing costs drove the Florida legislature to direct that ro'ect e ' ~,v~ ..., ..... ~ ~ ........... the ~,J b brou ht g p ojecr and the recently concluded a~ reviewing their experiences for the Virginia delegation, Florida officials indicated that their agreement with the vendor could have potentially included more specificity and provided more benefit to the State. However, they did not want to unduly limit the vendor's options, and there was considerable legislative pressure to expeditiously deal with the issues the state was facing. 7 Problems with the Florida project can be linked t~~ and to ~~system without some other form of executive oversight, which resulted in design changes that drove the costs even higher. Florida officials indicate that they are optimistic about the new contract, but that considerable time and technical, legal and financial expertise are required to develop and evaluate the procurement document and to negotiate the subsequent contract. South Carolina. The South Carolina Electric and Gas Company has-opened its growing land mobile radio system to public use. Under this public/private parmership, each state or local public agency using the system provides its own equipment and pays the utility a monthly fee. Public agencies using the system are primarily law enforcement. While not all of the state is yet covered, this partnership is anticipated to serve as the primary statewide provider of service for the foreseeable future. Utah. The Utah Communications Agency Network is an authority set up under state law to build and manage the statewide LMR system. A board comprised of one representative from each user agency oversees the authority. A bond issue paid the costs of constructing the initial infrastructure, and monthly user fees pay the ongoing operational costs. Ownership Options While there are a number of variations, the basic ownership options available to the Commonwealth for upgrading and operating a network suppo .rting a statewide land mobile radio system can be categoriZed as follows: The state upgrades, owns, operates and maintains the network infrastructure; The state abandons its current system, along with its VHF licenses, and purchases service from a network built and owned by a vendor; A shared public/private network infrastructure, wherein the state and its non-government partner share system upgrade development costs and assets, and share any revenues that might be-generated from use of the shared network (sometimes generically referred to as a "public/private partnership"). Under any of the options, the state may choose to either purchase the radios and terminals required by each user agency, or have such equipment supplied by the vendor under contract to provide the network, creating a hybrid solution. It is important to note that the Commonwealth, unlike some other states, is not proposing to build a new system but to upgrade an existing, functioning single-agency system into a more modem system capable of meeting the needs of multiple users. This approach also allows for use of regulated radio frequencies already licensed to Virginia by the Federal Communications Commission. Those licenses will not permit use of the upgraded system (tmnked digital ~,nvironmental Review Form Page 1 of~ Environmental Review · Home Project Review Forms · PROGRAMS · DHR FAQ · WHAT'S YOUR INTERE~ST · INCENTIVES / GRANTS · PUBLICATIONS · ARCHIVAL RESEARCH DOWNLOAD LIBRARY VA ARCH-NET · U. OW TO GET HERE · STAFF DIRECTORY · CONTACT US SITE INDEX · SEARCH The Project Review Application may be completed for all projects that will be funded, assisted, or licensed by'a federal agency. It is intended for all persons who are seeking the comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on behalf of a federal agency or in cases where an applicant is seeking the SHPO's comments in response to the requirements of the federal agency (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The department recommends that this form be completed' even in oases where project information is included in a separate document (e.g., an Environ mental Impact Statement), although such documents may be attached if they provide an important part of the project description. Before completing the Project Review Application form, information from the DHR Archives and Library and from other repositories, as appropriate, should be obtained. Visit the Archives Searches section of this site to learn how to request information from the D HR archives Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the SHPO has 30 days, after receipt of all necessary information, to provide comments on a project. Accurate and complete responses will help to provide a timely review. A separate application for cell tower projects is available to Streamline the process. In order to read and print the following forms, Adobe Acrobat Reader must be installed on your computer (free software). Down oad Acrobat Reader now. · _Project Review Application · Cell TowerApplication and Review Process Information DHR staff ami excavation archaeological .. M~ Environmez Main Page Frequently Questions, EnvironmeJ State and Laws 'and EnvironmeJ Staff Direct · Archives Search Form o Permit Application for Removal of Human Burials http ://state.vipnet. org/dhr/review/sem_ 106%20form.htm 10/3/01 VIRGNIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW FORM This application may be completed for all projects that will be federally funded, licensed, or assisted. Allow 30 days from receipt for the review of a project. All information on the form must be completed before review of a project can begin. GENERAL INFO~TION DHR Use Only Date Received: 1. Project Name: 2. Project Location (City or County): 3. Federal Agency (providing funding, assistance, license, or permit): 4. Agency Contact Person, Address, and Phone: 5. Other Federal Agencies involved (include names and addresses of contacts): 6. _Name and Firm of Applicant: 7. Address and Phone Number of Applicant: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION A photocopy of a 7.5 minute USGS topographic qUadrangle, or a clearlY labeled portion thereof, showing the exact boundaries of the project area must be attached to the application. The map should not be reduced or enlarged. 8. USGS Quadrangle Name: 9. Number of acres included in the project: 10. Has this project been previously.reviewed by the DHR? Yes: No: __Do Not Know: (Ifyes, give the DHR file no., if known 11. Have any architectural or archaeological surveys of the area been conducted? 12. Yes: No: Do Not Know:. (If yes, list author, title, date of the report Proj eot Description A. Explain any ground disturbance that might occur (e.g. excavating for sewer or util/ty installations, digging footings, grading roads, or developing erosion controls). Describe existing land use within the project area (e.g. plowed, residential, forest, etc.). Mention any previous modifications (e.g. grading, plowing, filling). Co Are any stmctures more than 50 years old within or adjacent to the project area? Yes: __ No: Do Not Know: (A photograph of each stmcture over 50 years of age keyed to the USGS quad within or adjacent to the project area must be submitted.) Does the project involve the rehabilitation, alteration, removal, or demolition of any structure, building, designed site (e.g. park, cemetery), or district that is 50 years or older? Yes: No: Do Not Know: (If yes, describe extent of alterations to property. Attach additional page(s) if necessary.) To the best of my knowledge, I have accurately described the proposed project and its likely impacts. Signature of Applicant/Agent Date When completed, send this form and all required attachments to the address below. If you have any questions, please contact the Division of Resource Services and Review at (804)' 367-2323, ext. 106. Department of Historic Resources Division of Resource Services and Review 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 This space for DHR response only: Comments Signature Phone Number Date DHR File No. Cell Tower Review ProceSs. and · . / Application . ../ Tho application for review of cell tower projects can be found bolo~w:tho folloWin~ the list of frequefitly asked questions. To expedite trio cell t0Wer apPlica¢o~ revi~TM the questions a~d their anSwem before Submi~infl an aPplisaflon: .... Why must histori~ resources bo eonsidored when tru~tino aeoil tOwer? Gonstruction of cell towers may have significant visual impacts on historic districts and structures and may destroy archeolooical sites. Tho Federal CommunicatiOns Gommission (FCG) licenses and codifications for Such facilities am fed0ml: actions subject to compliance with Section ~ 0~ of the National Historic ~msemation ACt (NH~A) and tho National Environmontal- ?o~iCY Act Section 106 of the National :Historic PreServation Act of 19.66, :as:amended;. requires that federal agencies take into account the effect Of their projects on hist°ric Pr0pei'ti~s aA'd gi~ea-nb~er'. federal .agency, the Advisory Council on HistoriCPre§ervati0n, .an. oppOrtunitY:tO 'comment. Consultation with the State Hist0dC PreservatiOn OffiCer (in Vitg!nia ihisi§ the Depai~itnent of Historic ReSources) is the key to most projects that are reviewed. The:FCC has puSs.ed the responsibility for carrying out most steps of the: Section '106 process On to :Cell carriers. FCQ regulations for compliance with NEPA are found in the Code oft:ederal Regulations, Title 47, Subchapter A, Part 1., Subpart I--Procedures Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (47 CFR Part 1.130~1 to 1.1309). The references to historic preservation are found at 47 CFR Part 1.1307(a)(4), which identifies facilities that may affect properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as potentially requiring NEPA compliance (including preparation of an Environmental Assessmentby the applicar~t). Does the FCC have guidance on NEPA and on Section 106 of the National HistOric Preservation Act? FCC has guidance on NEPA and answers to freqUently asked quesUons about NEpA. FCC does not have regulations or guidance on compliance with section 106 of the NHPA. It is important that you understand the steps of the Section 106 process. To avoid confusion and delay, we ask that your familiarize yourself with the regulations .implementing SectiOn 106 before you contacts DHR to request a review. The regulations can be found online at the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation's Web site. What do you need so that you can review my project? In order for this office to review a cell tower project we require.the follOwing information: 1. The results of an'archives Search 2. A map (USGS 7.5. minute' series) showing the lOcation of the proposed tower and the Area of Potential Effect 3. A corn pleted, cell.Tower Review Form Is there a fee for the review? No. If you elect to have our archivist'search our files for information on Previously recorded sites instead of doing:this yourself, there will be a fee for the service. How long does the review take? We would like to be able to review projects within 30 days. There has been'a phenomenal increase in the number of cell tower projects we receive, hoWever, and sometimes our review can take a bit longer. In order to help us meet our deadlines, We ask that you adhere to the following: · Please do not contact this. office to find out whether we have received yOur package. If you are concerned about the date of receipt', please ask the post. office fOr a return receipt. ResPonding to telephone calls asking whether we.have:received information takes valuable time awaY from reviews. · Please do not contact us to find out what the status of our review is, .as this ,alsO'takes time away from actual reviews. If you urgently need. a respOnse.On the prOject, you are welcome to supply us with your Federal'Express billing number, andwe will. Send it out by express mail once we have completed our review. What is the Area of Potential Effect? The Area of Potential Effect (A. PE) is defined in the ~Advisory Council's regulations as "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties? It is important the careful c0nsideration be given to the he~g~¥~i~'tower It is important the careful consideration be given' to the' height of the tower and its potential viewshed. Typically, a one-mile radius is used as the APE for a tower less than 200 feet in height and a two-mile radius is used for a tower taller than 200 .feet. This may vary significantly depending on the topography of an area. The archives search and field review should be done within the entire APE. The APE will be different for archaeo!ogical resources and architectural resources.. Only the actual tower site (and associated roads or structures) needs to be searched for previously recorded archaeological sites, while the larger one- or two-mile radius needs to be searched for architectural resources. Do I need to submit collocations for review? No. Collocation have been excluded from review under a Nationwide ~ Programmatic Agreement among the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the FCC, and the Advisory Council' of Historic Preservation exceptin a few circumstances. For this reasOn DHR will not respond on collocations unless certain conditions are met.:ilt is your resPonsibility to familiarize yourself with the term s of the Agreement. When review is required under the exceptions listed in stipulations III; IV and V, the nature of the exception. ShoUld be clearly stated on the cell tower review form. In.order to read and print the following forms, Adobe Acrobat Reader must be installed onyour computer (free software). Download Acrobat Reader now. · Cell Tower Review Form Environmental Review Main Page Pro/ect Review ApplicatiOn Forms Frequently Asked Questions About EnVironmental Review Environmental Review Staff Directory VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES CELL TOWER REVIEW FORM · Please complete one form for each proposed tower and mail to: Resources Services and Review, Department of Historic Resources, 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, VA, 23221. All attachments such as the project map, results of archives search (including inventory forms), photographs of any other structures in the area of potential effect more than 50 years of age and photosimulations must accompany form. Review does not begin until all information is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Name (one or two word identifier): Project Location (city or county): Carrier (Sprint, Verizon, SunCom, etc.): Preparer's Name: Preparer's Address: Height (in fee0 & type of tower (lattice, monopole) to be constructed: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) AND ItlSTORIC PROPERTIES: Were any properties located during the archives search? Yes: No: If yes, please list and attach photo simulations Are there other structures more than 50 years old within the APE? Yes: If yes, please give photo identifier and attach photosimulations No: This space for DHR response only: Additional information needed: Based on the information provided, we find that: No historic properties will be affected No adverse effect Adverse effect Signature: Phone: (804) 367-2323, ext. Date: DHR File No.: 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 O' Self Supporting Tower) View 1 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-17-25.6 W ~ RCC C~,-~olasr~lta,-l~ts II~c 50 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Monopole) View Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-17-25.6 W ~RCC Co~astlltants Inc 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 O' Fire Tower) View 1 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-17-25.6 W ~RCC Co~lslilital'~t:s, 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 O' Tree Tower) View 1 Peters Mountain (top) Eat, 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-17-25.6 W ~ RCC . ~CC Cor~sc~lta~ats~ Ir~c~ 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 O' Self Supporting Tower) View 2 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-17-25.6 W ~RCC Cons~_~ltants l:~ac~ 50 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Monopole) View 2 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-1 7-25.6 W ~RCC Co-nsulta~ats 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 O' Fire Tower) View 2 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long. 78-1 7-25.6 W ~RCC Co"i-~sklttar~ts, lnc 50 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) View 2 Peters Mountain (top) Lat. 38-07-21.9 N Long, 78-1 7-25.6 W ~RCC Con$-~ltarits Ir~c~ 50 mm lens 50 mm lens Site Data Marshall Properity* Lat. 38~07-9.3 N Long. 78-17-36.4 W Distance to Peters Mountain - .29 miles *(tower is entirely blocked by trees from all lines of site) ~RCC¢ Const~tar~ts lI'~c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) Rt. 640 (Turkey Sag Road) Lat. 38-05-32.3 N Long. 78-17-1 6.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.12 miles ~ RCC , 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Monopole) RL 640 (Turkey Sag Road) Lat. 38-05-32.3 N Long. 78-17-16.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2~12 miles ~ R C C C o :r~ $/~l I t a n t s, I :i~ c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Fire Tower) Rt. 640 (Turkey Sag Road) Lat. 38-05-32.3 N Long. 78-1 7-1 6.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.1 2 miles ~RCC Cona~lltants~ It-,c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) Rt. 640 (Turkey Sag Road) Lat. 38-05-32.3 N Long. 78-17-16.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.12 miles ~ R C C 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) Rt. 231 (Gordonsville Road) & Strawberry Hill Farm Lat. 38-05-43.1 N Long. 78-15-52.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.36 miles ~RCC Cons-~ltants, linc 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Monopole) Rt. 231 (Gordonsville Road) & Strawberry Hill Farm Lat. 38-05-43.1 N Long. 78-15-52.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.36 miles ~RCC Cons~ilta-nts~ IF~c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Fire Tower) Rt. 231 (Gordonsville Road) & Strawberry Hill Farm Lat. 38-05-43.1 N Long. 78-1 5-52.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.36 miles 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) 231 (Gordonsville Road) & Strawberry Hill Farm Eat 38-05-43.1 N Long~ 78-15-52.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.36 miles 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) Rt. 231 & Fielder's Choice Farm Lat. 38-06-36,4 N Long. 78-14-59.1 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.38 miles ~RCC Coris/~.ltal~ts, liac ' 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Monopole) Rt. 231 & Fielder's Choice Farm Eat. 38-06-36.4 N Long. 78-14-59.1 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.38 miles ~RCC Co-~sultants, l~c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Fire Tower) Rt. 231 & Fielder's Choice Farm Lat. 38-06-36.4 N Long. 78-14-59.1 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.38 miles ~ R C C C o-l-~ $ u I t a :n t s, t i-~ c 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) Rt. 231 & Fielder's Choice Farm Lat. 38-06-36.4 N Long. 78-14-59.1 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.38 miles ~RCC Cons~ltants~ I~c 50 mm lens* *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan. The arrow is only representational of the general area the tower would be located based on the information found in the 80mm image be/ow 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) 6700 Rt. 22/St. John's Road (1/4 Mile North of Rt. 22 on Rt. 640) Lat. 38-03-59.4 N Long. 78-16-07.3 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 4.07 miles 50 mm lens* *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan. The arrow is only representational of the general area the tower would be located based on the information found in the 80mm image below 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Monopole) 6700 Rt. 22/St. John's Road (1/4 Mile North of Rt. 22 on Rt. 640) Lat. 38-03-59.4 N Long. 78-16-07,3 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 4.07 miles ~RCC Col~s~ltants 50 mm lens* *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan, The allow i$ only representational of the general area the tower would be located based on the information found in the 80mm image belov.~ 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Fire Tower) 6700 Rt. 22/St. John's Road (1/4 Mile North of Rt. 22 on Rt. 640) Lat. 38-03-59.4 N Long. 78-16-07.3 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 4.07 miles ~ R C C ~CC Consultants 50 mm lens* *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan. The arrow is only representational of the general at~a the tower would be located based on the information found in the 80mm image below_ 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) 6700 Rt. 22/St. John's Road (1/4 Mile North of Rt, 22 on Rt, 640) Lat. 38-03-59.4 N Long. 78-16-07,3 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 4,07 miles ~ RCC e-~CC Consultarits~ Inc. 50 mm lens* *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan of either photo. The arrow is only representational of the general area the tower would be located 80 mm lens* Site Data Rt. 20 & Orange/Albemarle County Line Lat. 38-09-45.6 N Long. 78-18-00~1 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.81 miles ~ R (.-~ C C o n s ~A i1 t a n t s t[ :i-i c. 50 mm lens* Site Data 5785 Stoney Point Road (Rt.20) near Orange/Albemarle County Line Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.81 miles * Tower is entirely obscured from line of sight by foreground tree line ~ RCC ~C Consultants., 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) 4069 Echo Valley Road (Sunny Dell Farm) Lat. 38-09-3.5 N Long. 78-18-24~8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.15 miles ~ RCC C ~CC o r~ s ~ t~ t a n t s, ~ ~ c~ 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Monopole) 4069 Echo Valley Road (Sunny Dell Farm) Lat. 38-09-3.5 N Long. 78-18-24.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.15 miles ~-;~CC~ Consnltants~ lnc~ 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Fire Tower) 4069 Echo Valley Road (Sunny Dell Farm) Lat. 38-09-3.5 N Long. 78-18-24.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.15 miles ~ R C C C ~'~CC onsnttants, I~ac. 50 mm lens 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) 4069 Echo Valley Road (Sunny Dell Farm) Lat. 38-09-3.5 N Long. 78-18~24.8 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 2.15 miles *Under high magnification the ma~ker balloon WaS unnoticable in the final scan of the 50 mm photo. The arrow is only representational of the general area the tower would be located 80 mm lens 50 mm lens* Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) 3982 Echo Valley Road (Stilwin) Lat. 38-08-47.8 N Long. 78-1 8-13.5 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 1.8 miles ~RCC Col~slAltar~ts. *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan of the 50 mm photo. The arrow is only representational Of the generel area the tower would be located 50 mm lens* 80 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Monopole) 3982 Echo Valley Road (Stilwin) Lat. 38-08-47.8 N Long. 78-18-13.5 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 1.8 miles ~Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan of the 50 mm photo. The arrow is only representational of the general area tt3e tower would be located 50 mm lens* 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Fire Tower) 3982 Echo Valley Road (Stilwin) Lat. 38-08-47.8 N Long. 78-18-13.5 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 1.8 miles *Under high magnification the marker balloon was unnoticable in the final scan of the 50 mm photo. The arrow is only representational of the general area the tower would be located 50 mm lens* 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) 3982 Echo Valley Road (Stilwin) Lat. 38-08-47.8 N Long. 78-18-1 3.5 W Distance to Peters Mountain - 1.8 miles ~ RCC 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Self Supporting Tower) 3550 Echo Valley Road (End) Lat 38-08-4.0 N Long. 78-18-3.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - ~99 miles ~ RCC ~C (.~ o n s u ~ t a n t s ~ :~ c. 80 mm lens Site Data (1 10' Monopole) 3550 Echo Valley Road (End) Eat. 38-08-4.0 N Long. 78-18-3.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - .99 miles ~CC Cons/Altal~ts~ I 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Fire Tower) 3550 Echo Valley Road (End) Lat. 38-08-4.0 N Long. 78-18~3.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - .99 miles 80 mm lens Site Data (1 1 0' Tree Tower) 3550 Echo Valley Road (End) Lat. 38-08-4.0 N Long. 78-18-3.0 W Distance to Peters Mountain - .99 miles PROFFER FORM Original Proffer X . Amended Proffer (Amendment # Date: ,,z-/q-'Ol ZMA # 2001-013 Tax Map and Parcel Number: 56A1-1-0-37 .2777 Acres to be re'zoned fxom R-2 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, i~,rezon-ed. These-conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. The purpose of the rezoning of Tax Map 56A1 Parcel 01-37 is to allow existing development to be conforming to the Zoning Ordinance in effect on January 9, 2002. 1. By-right use of area zoned R-10 shall be limited to the uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 14.2.1 of Section 14.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto. 2. Special use of the area zoned R-10 shall be limited to uses permitted by special use permit pursuant to section 14.2.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto. ~ignatures ot'AllOC/fiers ¥ - ' PiSfited Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attomey-in-Fact ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 14 RESIDENTIAL - R-2 Sections: 14.1 14.2 14.2.1 14.2.2 14.3 14.4 14.4.1 14.4.2 14.4.3 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) ' ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING 14.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED This district (hereafter referred to as R-2) is created to establish a plan implementation zone that: -Provides a potential transitiondensity between higher and lower density areas established through previous development and/or zoning in community areas and the urban area: and -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and development amenities. R-2 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 14.2 PERMITTED USES 14.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of'this ordinance: I. Detached sin,,te-familv dwellines. 2. Cluster development of permitted residential uses. Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cottages, provided that yard. area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lay-out. 4. (Repealed 9-2-81) 5. (Repealed 9-2-81) Electric. gas. oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, 18-14-1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County bervice Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage sys.tems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) Accessory uses and buildings including home occupations (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. Temporary construction uses (reference 5. I. 18). Public uses and buildings including temporary or.mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission mare or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by theRivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference-31.2.5, 5.1.12). (Amended I I-1-89) I 0. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 11. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5. I.7).- 14.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved'by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: -1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad Stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf. tennis, or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers: micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and re'lay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference 5.1.13). 10, Hospitals: 1 I. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 12, Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 13. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81) 18-14-2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 13, 2001 Kathryn Bentley 2593 Shifflett's Mill Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: ZMA-2001-013 Hall Land Trust SUB-2001-215 C F Hall Land Trust Final Plat Tax Map 56A1, Parcel 37 Dear Ms. Bentley: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4,2001, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-2001-013 Hall Land Trust the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the attached proffers. SUB-2001-215 C F Hall Land Trust Final Plat - The Commission approved this final plat contingent upon approval of ZMA-2001-013 by the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 9, 2002. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Francis H. MacC~~~'~~ Planner FHM/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve AItshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA-2001-013 C F Hall Lan~...Trust SUB-2001-215 C F Hall Land'Trust SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone .2777 acres from R-2 to R-10 in Crozet. Request to subdivide the .2777 acre parcel into two lots. STAFF CONTACT(S): Francis H MacCall AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: December 4, 2001 January 9, 2002 ACTION: YES INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: YES INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to rezone a .2777 acre parcel of land in downtown Crozet from R-2 to R-10. The property, described as Tax Map 56A1-1 Parcel 37, is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on McComb Street at the intersection of McComb Street and Blue Ridge Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential for 3-6 dwelling units per acre in the Crozet Community. The tax parcel map and location map is provided as Attachments B & C, respectively. The plat shows the subdivision of the .2777 acres into two lots. The area surrounding the property is a residential subdivision with low-density residential development. The land is flat. Zoning and Subdivision History,: The property has been zoned R-2 since the first zoning map was adopted. The County's tax.maps show this property as one parcel consisting of.503 acres (Attachment B), however, recent deed research conducted by the Department o£Building Code & Zoning Services showed that the property was actually two parcels, a .2253 acre parcel and a .2777 acre parcel. The .2777 acre parcel to the west is the subject of this proposal. The applicant believes that the dwellings currently on the .2777 acre. parcel have been there since the 1950's. Specifics on the Proposal: The .2777 acre parcel is nonconforming in that two structures could not be constructed on the lot under R-2 zoning. The property is currently in the name of C.F. Hall Land Trust. There are three owners of the land for the two parcels. The three owners would like to subdivide the property and dissolve the trust. Loans for the improvements to the houses are contingent on the houses being on separate parcels: The proposed plat to create the two parcels is shown in Attachment A. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has stated that the development of the parcel wilt remain as is other than the maintenance and much needed improvement of each of the dwellings. There would be no new development on the property. By-right Use of the Property: Although, the lot is currently nonconforming because of the two dwellings on .2777 acres, zoned R-2, the maximum by-right use of the nonconforming lot is two dwellings. 12-17-01 Ali:11 IN Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as NeighborhoOd Density. The density for the rezoning (10 dwelling units per acre) is more than the recommended 3:6 dwelling units per acre shown on the Land Use Plan for this area. Other sections of the Land Use Plan promote the retention of the integrity of residential areas, which this rezoning would do. Many lots in the neighborhood are nonconforming in the same way. DISCUSSION: Staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. There do not appear to be any environmental features that would be affected by this proposall The access to this property would remain in it current state, thus not affecting the roads any more than existing usage. The property is currently part of an existing neighborhood and appears to have a well-established sense of community. Underground utilities are not affected. Water and sewer services are already provided. No new impervious surfaces are proposed so the affect on water quality is negligible. These homes are currently oriented to the public street. No new lighting is proposed with these single-family residential units. No historic buildings exist on the property. The minimum lot size required by the R-10 zoning district would not allow more than one dwelling unit on each of the proposed lots. The proposed district is R-10 Residential. The intent of the R-10 zoning district is to provide for comPact, medium density single family development, to permit a variety of housing types, and to provide incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and development amenities. The final plat shows medium-density development, with small lots for single-family detached units. The development, as proposed on the plat, is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the requested zoning'district. The applicant has been asked to a proffer the following; the purpose of the R- 10 zoning is for allowing existing development to be conforming to the ordinance, and that the uses for the R-2 zoning district will be the only uses allowed on these parcels once divided. At this time, the staff is working with the applicant on this issue. There are no anticipated impacts on public facilities and services or on any County natural, cultural or historic resources. With the approval of the rezoning, the County can also approve the attached subdivision plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and the subdivision plat. ATTACHMENTS: A - Plan dated June 28, 2001 B - Tax Parcel Map C Location Map 2 ATTACH M EN¥ A OWNERS APPROVAL THE DIVISION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND/OR TRUSTEES. ANY REFERENCE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT tS TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY. ALL. STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PlAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. OWNERS: C.F. HALL LAND TRUST TMP 56A1-1-57 NOTARY PUBLIC THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2001. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES. APPROVED FOR RECORDATION LEGAL REFERENCES: D.B. ;1358 P. 66 SURVEYING INC. 2193 MOUNTAIN BROOK DRIVE ::'~ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902, ~ PH: (804,) 296-4.115 '---" IRON 9 20, 40 , .........' SCALE tN FEET TMP 56A1-1-41 D.B. 756 P. 486 N 42'47'04" W _.~ ...... ------ 62.34' FOUND .I,, TMP 56A1-1-58 "~ TMP 56Al~:I.~3?A D.B. 285 P. 5 .~ 0.2255 AC. 6 ~ ,50' 76.55' PLAT SHOWING McCOMB STREET A DIVISION OF TMP 56A1-1-37 PROPER~ 'S ZONED R2 CREATING LOTS 1 & 2 ms ~m~-~-~7 o. z77~ ~c. LOCATED: NEAR CROZET ~or ~ o.~z~ ~. WHITE HALL DISTRICT ~or 2 o.~o~ ~c. o.~ Ac. ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA s~ssT ~ o~ ~ JUNE 28, 2001 2001 085 9 89 ATTACHMENT B See 56- 6! ,~ 62 SMALL ACREAGE ~/WAYLAND PARK EX']' ~{ DEED BOOK 409 pg. 391) -ORO7ET DEV. CO. WAYLAND PARK D,B. 317 Pc, ~15 S~. GEORGE ~RES D.B.~8-416 WESTON ~. 1443 Pg 243 WHITE HALL DISTRICT CROZET INSERT SECTION 56A(I) LH'I'LE FLAT MTN. GIBSON MOUNTAIN MouNTAiN ZMA 2001-013 Hall, C.F.-Land Trus~ ATTACHMENT C BUCK' MTN. --J David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier~ ~Jr. Scottsville Charles $. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 January 14, 2002 Walter F. Perkins Valite Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Robert D. and Carroll Gilges 6225 Sugar Hollow road Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gilges: I am writing to thank vou for your participation in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/ForeEtal District. These districts are a vital part of our efforts to protect Albemafle's farmlands, forests, and rural way of. life. The districts enable Albemarle government to determine what areas of the county are serious about supporting that rural way of life so we can make more appropriate land-use derisions. The districts also reassure rural land6wners that there are enough other landowners with similar interests to create a critical mass of support. Although there are not many tangible benefits to the landowners, the intangible support for rural values is crudal in shaping the future of Albemarle County. The program could not exist without you and your fellow District members. Your commitment to protecting our Counw's rural areas is greatly appredated. As you lmow, the Sugar Hollow Agricultural~Xorestal District was recently reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. On January 9, 2002, the Board added your property to the DiStrict. Of course we welcome new additions to the Districts at any time. If you have neighbors who are interested in joining a District, please have them call Scott Clark in our Planning Department at 296-5823 ext. 3325. Thank you again for your partidpation. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc cc: Scott Clark Janice Farrar Printed on recycled paper ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District~ consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 1~ 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcel 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on January 9, 2002. Ci~-~, B0a'~d of County Su~l~ervisors /--~-f Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Mr. Rooker Y Ms. Thomas Y Aye Nay Y Draft: 01/03/02 ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors ofthe County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestat District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 1 lC, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 21, 2lA, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, llC. llD. 123, 13. 19, 40B, 40C, 4lA, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; mx map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcel 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Ms. Dorrier Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors December 13, 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 Robert D. & Carroll Gilges 6225 Sugar Hollow Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition Tax Map 26, Parcels 11 C, 11D, 12A and 13 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gilges: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4, 2001 ,unanimously recommended approval of the addition of 132.251 acres to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a fina~ decision on January 9, 2002, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely~ Planner sc/jcl Cc: Ella Carey 12-17-01 Att:11 N Staff Person: Scott Clark Planning Commission: December 4, 2001 Board of Supervisors: January 9, 2002 [] Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition [] Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District Withdrawal Request Sugar Hollow District Addition The Sugar Hollow_ District was created on September 6, 1989. The District was last reviewed on October 6, 1999. Location: The Sugar Hollow District is located near White Hall. Acreage: The Sugar Hollow District contains 4793.288 acres in 51 parcels. The proposed addition contains 132.251 acres in 4 parcels. See Attachment A for the location of the addition. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is forested, with 2 dwellings. Si~ificant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: One acre are excluded from use-value taxation as residential uses. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: Residential Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area is made up ora mix of large farm and forest parcels and smaller residential lots. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Sugar Hollow District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area to this proposed addition is the Crozet community, which is approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the property. A relevant Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A relevant strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter) The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important mountains, farmlands, and forests. Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space. Soil Information: Attachment B shows that the proposed addition has a mix of soil productivity classes, from II to VII. The largest parcel in the addition, parcel 26-13, is in land-use taxation: PARCEL #: (]2600-00-00-01300 CLASS I ACREAGE AGRICULTURAL VALUE VALUE I ASSESSMENT 0.000 11.020 1.140 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.840 0.000 I II III IV V VI VII VIII 19.000 460 I $ 0 410 I $ 4,518 310 $ 353 240 $ 0 18o I $ o 15o $ o 90 $ 616 $3o I $o $ 5,500 FOREST VALUE CLg~ S ACREAGE VALUE AS SES SMENT EXCELLENT 19.370 GOOD 1.840 FAIR 71.020 NON-PRODUCTIVE 0.000 TOTAL I 92.230 270 $ 5,230 185 $ 340 120 $ 8,522 lOO $ o $ 14,100 Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Committee Recommendation: At their meeting on November 11, 2001, the committee unanimously recommended approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Planning Commission Recommendation: At their meeting on December 4, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Moorman's River District Withdrawal Request The current owners of parcels 43-33D and 43-34 inherited tl~e land in 1995. They apparently were not aware that the land was in an Agricultural/Forestal District until they recently decided to sell the land. Therefore, they did not apply for the available by-right withdrawal within two years of the death of the previous owner. They now feel that they are unable to afford to keep the land, and wish to withdraw from the District so that they land may be sold for subdivision. (See Attachment C.) This Committee must make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Board regarding the proper decision to be made in this case. Section 302-5 of the County Code requires that a withdrawal from a district be approved only if it meets the following four criteria: 1. The proposed new land use will not have a significant adverse affect on agricultural or forestal operations on land within the district. Since the land will be subdivided, 43.577 acres will be taken out of potential agricultural or forestal production. Residential development of these parcels could lead to conflicts between adjacent uses. 2. The proposed new land use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential development of this land will not support the goals expressed in the Growth Management section of the Land Use Plan (protecting the rural areas' agriculmral/forestal, water-supply, natural, scenic, and historical/cultural resources, and limiting service delivery.) - ~ The proposed land use is consistent with the public interest of the county in that it promotes the health, safety, or general welfare of the county, rather than only the proprietary interest of the owner. Residential development of this property would not actively promote or improve public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The proposed land use was not anticipated by the owner at the time the land was placed in the district, and there has been a change in circumstances since that time. There are no records to indicate the intent of the owner who placed this land in the District. There has been a change in circumstances, in that the land was divided by three heirs who cannot afford to keep it. Given that: this request meets only one of the four criteria; this land may be withdrawn by fight in three years (during the review scheduled for 12/17/2004), and c2 the land is by no means without value while in the District, staff is compelled to recommend that this withdrawal request be denied. However, there are other factors that the committee may wish to consider before making their recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Board: The current owners were not aware that the land was in the District, and therefore did not know to exercise their by-right withdrawal within two years of the death of the previous owner. The County has approved withdrawals beyond the two-year deadline in the past. However, in those cases the circumstances were different. In one case, the deadline was missed by 1 day. In another, the review was required only because the original owner was a family corporation, not a person. That withdrawal was approved because the deceased owner was a part of that corporation, and because the land was not expected to go out of agricultural production. Committee Recommendation: At their meeting on November 27,2001, the committee voted to deny the request for withdrawal. Plannin g Commission Recommendation: At their meeting on December 4, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for withdrawal. Attachments A. Sugar Hollow addition - map B. Sugar Hollow addition - soil map C. Moorman's Pdver withdrawal - request letter D. Moorman's River withdrawal - map Y 35 ATTACHMENT B 60E ¢8E 90C 59E 36q~ ~ ATTACHMENT C Robert Harris 2718 Free Union Rd. Charlottesville,Va.22901 7/27/O1 Dear Board of Supervisors: This letter is a request to withdraw fromthe agriculture district. This request is being made because I can~ t afford to maintain the property. Also because the' property is jointly ow ned by myself and two sisters, Betty Barker and Elna Yongue. It came into our ownership in1995 by wa}, of inheritance. In order to divide the proceeds we need to sell the property. In order to maximize the value ofthe property· we need to have dfvision rights. This means to withdraw fromthe agriculture district. Your attention into this matter would be appreciated. Reference: Sincerely T.M.&3-OO-OO33d and /+3-00-00-3/~ Phone: 804-293-8926 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT D .,-~,(' ~ .~. ~'-.~ , % %. I ~ ; .$ ', %,/ ' ,~_ / ' ' x ' . ~ ~ '.~ ~ ' ~ .~ "_ / / t Moorman'~ver AeiculturaFForestal ~ici' ,_,~,~' ' ' , z~,~'L6~ '~ -'~ ~ ' , ~L ~.' ~ ~.. ] , ,. ~ ~,. ~' ,. . . , r'- ~ ,, ~ ,' ~ :6C ~OB JACK JOUETT DISTRCT$ 19 SECTION 43 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department og Planning & Community Development 40t Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434~ 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 19, 2001 Robert Harris 2718 Free Union Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Moorman's River Withdrawal Agricultural/Forestal District Tax Map 43, Parcels 33D and 34 - LETTER OF CORRECTION Dear Mr. Harris: The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on December 4, 2001 recommended denial of the withdrawal of 43.577 acres from the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District. .. by a vote of 3-2 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on January 9, 2002, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to theClerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Planner SC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey 12-20-01P04:48 RCVD Krysia Carmel Nelson Theodore J. Korth NELSON & KORTH, PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 420 PARK STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Telephone (434) 979-0053 Facsimile (434) 979.0237 KCarmel~aol.com Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Wednesday, January 09, 2002 Re: "Harris" Property known as "Rolling Hills" on Free Union Rd. Request for Early Withdrawal From Agricultural/Forestal District Dear members of the Board of Supervisors: By way of introduction, I am a resident and property owner of Albemarle County. I live with my family across the street from the subject property, and my father owns a home nearby, also across the street from the subject property. But I am writing not out of my concern as an immediate neighbor, but as a County resident and attorney much concerned with the integrity of the Agricultural/Forestal District program. The owners of "Rolling Hills" are requesting early withdrawal from the Agricultural/Forestal District because a developer wants to purchase and develop the property. Their initial claim of "financial hardship" was rejected by the Agricultural/Forestal District Committee on November 27, 2001, which noted that the owners had not and could not make out a legitimate case for financial hardship. At the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, one of the owners, Mr. Harris, offered no other support for his request except to say that it would be "nice" if the property could be prematurely withdrawn from the District so that he and his sisters could sell it to the interested developer. There could hardly be a less compelling case for premature withdrawal. Simply put: there is no financial hardship here; there is no compelling reason to grant the property owners' request, and; "nice" is not one of the exceptions permitting premature withdrawal from the District. The problem I, and many others, have with this situation is that if the Board of Supervisors permits the premature withdrawal of this property from the District, the message to developers, property owners, and the residents of this County, will be clear: the land use restrictions of the County are meaningless and the Ag/Forest District is meaningless. There could hardly be a less compelling case for premature withdrawal. Admittedly, this Board is not £n-rnly bound by its own precedent as decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. However, granting this request would "lower the bar," so the speak, and encourage developers to send property owners forward to seek premature withdrawal from the District without regard to prior commitment to the District. I'm sure it would be "nice" for the Harris' and the developer if this Board let them develop this property now. But so too, it might be 'haice" for the University to be able to develop all the Kluge properties now, instead of waiting nine years for Mr. Kluge's commitment to the District to expire. If "nice" is going to be the standard we're working with, we might as well scrap the District entirely. And that's our fear. We live by rules. We make exceptions to rules to keep them from being unjustly applied. But injustice is measured by extremes, not niceties, Please secure the integrity of the Ag/Forest District and the land use restrictions of this County and refuse the premature withdrawal of this property from the District. It's not your job to be nice. Very truly yours, Krysia Carmel Nelson P.S. A petition was circulated to the Planning Commission on December 4, 2001. That petition set forth the same substantive points that I make here today. By way of"cc" (carbon copy), I list the supporters thereof. CC: Mrs. Peter Easter Ms. Deborah Easter Ms. Elliewood Baxter Mr. Tom Bishop Mr. Jock Fiery Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Butterfield Mr. and Mrs. James Fogleman Mr. and Mrs. Paul Summers Mr. Robert L.S. Nelson Mr. William L. Carmel Mr. Sepp Kober Mr. and Mrs. Tom Sears Mr. Tim Radsky Mr. Bruce Berry Mr. and Mrs. John Dudinsky Ms. Mary Minor Henderson Ms. Elizabeth Lower Ms. Tara Murray Mr. Kenneth Elias Mrs. Kenneth Chapman Ms. Allyson Louthan Mr: and Mrs. Sam Wells ALBEMARLE FARM Management, LLC Rob Nelson 408 Park Street · Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 245-1255 ° AFMRLSN@intelos.net Board of Supervisors Albemarle County January 9, 2002 Re: Harris Property-Early Withdrawal from F & A District Dear Board Members: As a local Realtor with over a decade's experience selling farm properties, I'd like to address the position of the applicants in respect to real estate land values, marketing time frames, and the absence of "financial hardship" in this case. I believe I speak with some authority on the subject as I have been selling farm and estate properties exclusively in Central Virginia for 15 years -- in the past for Joe Aust of Albemarle Properties, Frank Hardy, Sotheby's International Realty, and now Gordon Wheeler. I specialize in properties in the $800,000 to $2.5m range. Additionally, I was recently qualified as an Expert Witness on County Real Estate values by Judge Peatross in Albemarle Cotmty Circuit Court. First, selling this property while it is still in the Ag/Forest District should not create any financial hardship on the family and this is why: land values for farms of this nature are not dependent on division rights. The farm has just as much value marketed as a mid-size horse farm, or small estate, as it does a divis~le tract. Every farm I've ever sold has had division rights, but that's not why the buyers purchased them. They purchase this type ofproperty because of location, aesthetic attributes (open field to forest ratio, views, etc), suitability to equine pursuits (literally, the lay of the land), good soils, good water, attractive housing and for everything else Charlottesville offers; history, climate, The University, a high standard of living, to include good shopping, restaurants, entertainment and low crime. For all these factors, Rolling Hills stands on its own as inherently valuable regardless of any division rights. These particulars are simply what sells real estate in the Charlottesville market. A "conservation" buyer will pay the same kind of premium as the developer and the temporary "loss" of division rights will not work any devaluation on the property. Secondly, Rolling Hills has not been on the market but barely three months, and the sign has been out in front of the property for less time than that. The property owners were negotiating with the developer before the property even went on the market, and had concluded their negotiations before the sign went up. To allow them out of the district prematurely so that they may take advantage of the first offer that came across the table is problematic for many reasons: it shows little in the way of testing the market, patience and reality and is grossly unfair to all the other farmers who have committed to the Ag/Forest program. The property owners would be better off to demonstrate some patience and wait until their commitment expires because not only is it reasonable to expect a property of this kind to be on the market for more than a year, but its value will only appreciate, not depreciate, in the meantime. All 4 of the firms I've worked for routinely ask for a 2-year listing period. It is only fair to sellers to be~ tmthftfl about timing, and ask them to be patient. Once above the $1m mark, we find it often takes a year, to a year and a half to sell and bring to close, sometimes longer. To be overly optimistic about the time necessary to market a farm only does a disservice to agent and Seller. So, my point as it relates to the applicants is to garner some patience and be realistic about the timing. In my 15 years in the market, properties here have done nothing but appreciate (and farm & estate properties often appreciate in double digits) frequently yielding better returns than the stock market. Considering what little time Rolling Hills has been on the market, the applicant can hardly prove hardship as it relates to our specific real estate market. He's really shooting himself in the foot as I see it. As the County Assessor will attest, the property's location, not its potential division rights, is what will make it appreciate in value over the remainder of the applicants Ag/Forest commitment, regardless of the condition of improvements. Although properties are, to use the Assessor's words, "more valuable split up," that additional value is realized not by the property owner, but by the developer. In summary, denying the property owners' request will not create any financial hardship. The property is as valuable in this market with the Ag/Forest District restrictions as it is without then~ But the property owners haven't given themselves the time to experience this reality. But even if it's a reality they don't want to explore, they will soon be free from the Ag/Forest District restrictions, and their land will continue to appreciate in value in the interim~ Rob Nelson Realtor, Farm Mgr. Albemarle Farm Management & Gordon Wheeler & Assoc,'s, Inc. rlsn Draft: 01/03/02 ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE IL DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural- and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7Al, 7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B, SE, 8H, 8J, 8~K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70Hi, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, SD, 9E, 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, SA, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels I, lB, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 1SA, 18C, 18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 191, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 2lA, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, ~ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 3lA, 31Al, 31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on December 21, 1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21, 2004. (4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00) Draft: 01/03/02 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Ms. Dorrier Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 2