Communications Tower
Status report posted June 1, 2010Committee chair Joan Darrah was informed by Bryan Cline, Site Acquisition Manager for ACO Property Advisors that they are pursuing a potential location in Lamond Park (east side of Fort Hunt Road). He said the application is with the Park Authority for review at this point, and that it has not been accepted.
EARLIER REPORTS
February 2010
Since the December MVUC congregational meeting when we voted to proceed with a cell tower/tree on MVUC property, ATT has decided to look again to see if there is a public property option for locating the proposed cell tower. This effort will include looking again at Lamond Park on Ft Hunt Road. Until this process is complete, ATT will not proceed further with a proposal to put a cell tower/tree on MVUC property. Thus the balloon test, subsequent photo simulations, propagation tests, and site plans will be on hold for the foreseeable future. If ATT cannot identify an acceptable public site, then ATT will resume negotiations with MVUC.
Prior to this development, the MVUC cell tower committee was discussing next steps for further dialogue with the surrounding residential communities about the project. This effort is also on hold pending the results of ATT's new search.
December 2009
Based on the positive vote of the Church at the special congregational meeting on December 6 (with 121 “yes” and 38 “no” votes), the Board of Trustees decided to continue negotiating with AT&T/ACO Property Advisors for the construction of a communications tower/tree on church property.
On December 9th, representatives from MVUC, AT&T, ACO property advisors, Bechtel Engineers, and Ron Fitzsimmons, senior aide to Supervisor Gerry Hyland, held a meeting on the MVUC meadow to review the proposal to date and to refine site plans. At this meeting, it was determined that the tower/tree would actually only need to be approximately 115 feet tall, not the 140 feet previously estimated. Although the tower/tree could be built to accommodate 4 carriers, we may attempt to limit the amount of meadow space used by including ground equipment for only three carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. If, in the future, Sprint or a fourth smaller carrier wants to add on, consideration could be given at that time to expanding the equipment storage area. It is hoped that we may be able to increase rental collected from the 3 carriers to at least partially off-set the income expected from a fourth carrier (approximately $500 a month).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL - Fall 2009
How did this idea come about? ACO Property Advisors Inc., on behalf of AT&T, approached MVUC about the possibility of installing wireless telecommunications equipment on MVUC property. A group of MVUC members (Ron Brandt, Wendy Burns, Al Erickson, and committee chair Joan Darrah) have been talking with ACO to evaluate possible locations for the antennas and ground equipment, with the goal of finding a location that is technically feasible and aesthetically appropriate for MVUC and the neighborhood.
Why do the committee and MVUC Board think the project is worth pursuing? There are two primary reasons. First, this equipment would dramatically improve wireless communications in the area - a much needed safety and convenience enhancement. Second, it could produce significant income for the church. AT&T would generate approximately $21,600 a year for MVUC and up to three additional carriers would generate approximately $6,000 a year from each carrier.
What is the proposal? The proposal under consideration would have the antennas mounted/disguised in an artificial tree to be located on the far corner of the meadow (near the new rain garden) with associated ground equipment in the same area.
Why here? Communications equipment on the MVUC property would fill in much-needed coverage between an area that is covered by a facility at St. Luke’s and one that is proposed at the Mount Vernon Methodist Church.
Why is this considered a safety improvement? Cell phone connectivity is very poor in the neighborhood and on the MVUC property. In an emergency, there is no guarantee that a 911 call from a cell phone would connect. In addition, Fairfax County is working toward implementing a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System in which the 911 call-takers enter the type of assistance needed, the address, call back name and number and any additional information that would assist the police, firefighters and paramedics to provide the appropriate level of service as quickly as possible. Increased cell phone connectivity would significantly increase the reliability of this system.
Was any consideration given to putting an antenna on the church building? Yes, initially ACO/AT&T proposed putting a large boxy structure on top of the clerestory wall at the back of the chapel, but committee members thought that would not be aesthetically appropriate. Also, such a structure would have accommodated only one carrier, and there was concern about finding an appropriate location for the associated support equipment.
Are there options other than an “artificial tree”? Yes, monopoles and flagpoles have also been used. In some cases, the antenna can be installed in an existing structure; this was done with the St. Luke’s Episcopal Church steeple. After looking at various options, the MVUC committee concluded that an artificial tree was the most aesthetically appropriate option for us.
Where would the equipment be located? It is proposed that the artificial tree and ground equipment be located beyond the rain garden, near the blackberry bushes. The total ground area is less than 2,500 sq. feet . The entire structure would be surrounded by an 8 foot board-on-board fence with landscaping to hide the fence. The tree would be approximately 115 feet tall as it needs to be above the existing real trees. The tree and equipment must comply with Fairfax County setbacks: no less than 35 ft. from a neighbor’s front yard or rear yard and no less than 25 ft. from a neighbor’s side yard.
How many carriers could be accommodated? Initially only AT&T, but the tower/tree would be constructed to accommodate up to three additional carriers. Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile, Cricket, and Clearwire are possible co-locators.
How much income would such an arrangement generate for MVUC? Although a contract has not been signed, we have tentatively talked about a monthly lease with AT&T of $1,800 or an annual lease of $21,600 with a 3% annual increase. For each subsequent carrier, we would ask for $500 a month or $6,000 a year with the same 3% annual increase.
Is there someplace that we could go to see an “artificial tree” and associated ground equipment? Yes, Sleepy Hollow Methodist Church at 3435 Sleepy Hollow Road, Falls Church, VA 22044 has a tree and associated ground equipment. Mt. Vernon Mansion also has an artificial tree.
Are there communications towers located at other churches and schools in Fairfax County? Yes, many churches and schools have this equipment, including Saint Luke’s Episcopal on Fort Hunt Road. Accotink UU and Mount Vernon Methodist Church have recently signed contracts with AT&T. Fairfax County Public Schools currently lease space to AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon at the following facilities: Bryant Alternative High School, Centreville High School, Chantilly High School, Edison High School, Hayfield High School, Langley High School (2 towers), Lorton Administrative Center, McLean High School, Oakton High School, Robinson High School, South Lakes High School (2 towers), Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Woodson High School, and Westgate Elementary School.
If the lease is terminated, what would happen to the equipment and MVUC property? A lease has not yet been signed, but a typical lease requires that within 120 days of the termination, the tenant will remove all of the tenant’s improvements, including footings, foundations, and concrete to a depth of one foot below grade, and tenant will, to the extent reasonable, restore the premises to its condition at the commencement of the agreement, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond tenant’s control excepted.
Has MVUC been approached before about putting equipment on our property?
Yes, in 2001, Sprint approached MVUC about the possibility of installing cell phone equipment on MVUC property. The congregation voted 91 to 40 to proceed but subsequent objections from some of the neighbors resulted in Sprint seeking out another location (Saint Luke’s Episcopal Church on Fort Hunt Road). Clearwater communications also inquired in 2007 but nothing came of that.
Are radiofrequency (RF) waves from a cell tower likely to be harmful to my health?
There are conflicting reports about the ways in which electromagnetic radiation, including radiofrequency waves, affect the human body, and the levels of exposure that are required. At very high levels of exposure, RF can cause heating of body tissue. This effect is far more likely to occur while actually using a cell phone than it is from proximity to a cell tower. According to the FCC, the energy from cellular phone antennas, like other telecommunications antennae, is directed toward the horizon. Thus, the greatest exposure to the RF signal occurs at the level of the antenna, or immediately in front of it, with some downward scatter. The signal is dissipated by building material, such as wood or concrete, as well as distance from the antenna. Typically, measured exposure to the RF signal on the ground or within a building is many times less than the level permitted by federal regulation. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per channel, the majority of cellular base stations in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states: "Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) states: In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter. This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters. Calculations corresponding to a “worst-case” situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC’s guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer. Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html
The American Cancer Society States: “Humans generate electromagnetic fields internally as well as externally. The simple collision between 2 molecules is an electrical event. Since there is electrical activity inside the human body, the question arises as to whether radio waves emitted by cellular phone towers can influence cell function, and in particular whether they can cause cancer. However, several theoretical considerations suggest that cellular phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer. First, the energy level of radio waves is relatively low. Electromagnetic energy comes in "packages" that are referred to as photons. Photon energy is measured in electron volts (eV), the energy gained by an electron after accelerating over 1 volt. The energy in the photons depends directly on the frequency, and decreases as one moves down the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays have about 1,000 eV of energy, while the photon energy of radio waves from cellular phone towers is about one millionth of an eV, not enough to alter molecules in the body. A second issue has to do with wavelength. Radio waves have a wavelength of approximately 1 foot in air, and about 2 inches in body tissue. As a result, RF radiation can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from radio waves could be concentrated on a small bit of tissue, affecting individual cells. A third issue has to do with the magnitude of exposure. Measurements taken around typical cellular phone towers, show ground level power densities well below the recommended limits. Moreover, public exposure near cell phone towers is not significantly different than background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. For these reasons, cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp?sitearea=PED
Who regulates cellular base stations with regard to potential health effects? The Federal Communications Commission has established standards for radio frequency exposure. All cellular installations must comply with these regulations. The levels of exposure allowed under the FCC guidelines fall within the levels recommended by other
world agencies looking at this issue.
If the congregation agreed to proceed, what would be the timeline? The total time from lease signing to operation is approximately 16-22 months. Once the lease was signed, AT&T/ACO would work with Fairfax County Planning/Zoning to get approval. This can take 12-18 months from the time of lease signing. There are several steps in this process. At a community balloon test, AT&T/ACO flies a balloon at the proposed height of the tower and invites the neighboring community and planning officers to observe. There is also a requirement to have a community meeting preceded by a formal notice sent to the neighboring property owners. Once that process is complete, AT&T would make a presentation to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Assuming a favorable vote, this would complete the County approval process. The building permit process would take about 4 weeks, and then AT&T/ACO would break ground. Construction would take 4-6 weeks.
PHOTOS OF SIMILAR TOWERS AT OTHER LOCATIONS
