1 / 18

Alternative Sites

Alternative Sites. Dan Wilkinson Electrical Engineer President - Cody Park HOA. Minimum standard of Rezoning Resolution Section 17 2b. (1) & Tower Siting & Review Policy 1b. TLUP

mostyn
Download Presentation

Alternative Sites

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alternative Sites Dan Wilkinson Electrical Engineer President - Cody Park HOA

  2. Minimum standard of Rezoning Resolution Section 17 2b. (1) & Tower Siting & Review Policy 1b. TLUP The applicant must show that their proposed equipment cannot be accommodated and function….on any other existing facility. No Rezoning if Alternative Sites Exist

  3. Issue: No Rezoning if Alternative Sites Exist Applicant mustprove that no alternative sites exist

  4. Alternative Sites Do Exist • Lower Squaw Mountain • Other Sites with Standing Towers • 8 other sites in Jefferson County Ex. 5, 6 • 32 FCC registered towers over 252 feet (77 meters) high within 50 kilometers of Lookout Ex.4

  5. 2 DTV Stations On PlainsKDEN and KWHD

  6. Numerous Studies and Field Tests Support Alternative Sites • Comparison of Broadcast Tower Sites, Dec 2001, Broadcast Engineering Consultants • DTV Reception Study, May 2002, Al Hislop • Squaw Mountain DTV Field Study, November 2002, Squaw Mountain Communications (SMC) • Comments to Jefferson County Regarding Lower Squaw Mountain DTV Study, November 2002, Hartech, Inc. Theoretical studies provide predictions. Field studies provide facts.

  7. Squaw Mountain Represents the Best Alternative Site • Safety: Few homes at same elevation as towers • Coverage: • Provides 98% of market with booster • Provides natural isolation from NIST quiet zone • Zoning: ODP grants three complete antenna sites • Assessibility: 2-wheel drive access year round • Visual Impact: No need for lighting or painting tower LSM effectively addresses market needs while in best interest of health, safety & welfare of community.

  8. SMC DTV Field Study • Authorized by FCC • Demonstrates reception of low-power DTV • Most of Denver Metro area • Shadow areas of Jefferson county • Utilized only 2.4% of allowable power • Validates on-channel booster technology • Proves technology is easy and inexpensive

  9. LCG Issues with Lower Squaw Mountain • Transmitters require more power • Lack of "vertical real estate" • Requires building space of 20,000 sq. ft. • Produces "shadow zones" • Boosters / repeaters not available • Digital users group claim reception problems

  10. SMC DTV Field Study* Final conclusion: "With the addition of an On-Channel DTV Booster to fill in Boulder, any full power DTV facility on Squaw Mountain would provide a useable DTV signal over more than 98% of all of the population in the market area." * Squaw Mountain DTV Field Study, November 2002 Squaw Mountain Communications (SMC)

  11. Hartech, Inc. Reviewed SMC DTV Field Study* Final conclusion: "Squaw Mountain should be considered as a potential alternative site to the front range sites for RF coverage of the Denver Metropolitan area." * Comments to Jefferson County Regarding Lower Squaw Mountain DTV Study, November 2002

  12. Hartech, Inc. Supports the Following SMC Conclusions • A full power DTV facility on Squaw Mountain will cover virtually all the Denver Metro Area and beyond except for Boulder. • A DTV On-Channel Booster can be constructed rapidly and successfully to fill in important shadow areas such as Boulder. • The Boulder On-Channel Booster demonstrated that pockets of deep shadowing can be filled as desired.

  13. Hartech, Inc. Supports the Following SMC Conclusions • A low power DTV On-Channel Booster was shown to cover most of Boulder. • Multipath is not a significant problem for DTV reception from Squaw Mountain. • Squaw Mountain is in fact a suitable site for Broadcast DTV service in the Denver Metropolitan area and beyond.

  14. Hartech Comments Regarding Multipath Reception • "It appears that the only strong reflections which showed up were close to the test receiver sites..." • "We expected the multipath interference to be much more severe than that found..." • "...the effect of multipath was not nearly as destructive as we predicted." DTV receivers effectively manage multipath.

  15. Hartech Comments Regarding Booster Tests • "... it appears a booster is needed in Boulder and will provide coverage." • "A booster will most likely be required by transmitters on Mount Morrison or Lookout Mountain to enlarge the Boulder area coverage." LCG will need a booster regardless of transmitter site.

  16. Digital Users Group Claim Reception Problems • May have attempted reception while transmitter was not operating • Improper use of receiver equipment • Transmitter was operating at only 2.4% of total allowable ERP Digital Users Group did not coordinate with SMC test.

  17. Why the Concern? • Long-term low power exposure • Experts in field suggest prudence to long-term low power RF effects • LCG not acting in best interests of community • Potential for increased exposure • Rotation of Lookout Mountain energy beam to address quiet areas not regulated by county • Ralston Elementary School is directly affected Your decision is permanent and has lasting effects.

  18. Recommendations • LCG proposal must be denied • Studies support alternative sites • Not in best interest of health, safety & welfare of community • LCG has failed to prove its case • Support future studies concerning biological effects caused by long-term low power exposure to RF radiation

More Related