Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0818 CC REG ITEM 09BTo From: Date AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK Honorable City Council rrEM 9. B. CITY OF N10ORP NRK, CALTFnRNIA City C ;)vncd Nfeeting aid crIo :C1Q C4M C G. niny o�s�o �� ovr 3 Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Developmentle.�' August 11, 1999 (CC meeting of 8/18/99) Subject: CONSIDER APPEAL 99 -1 OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT (15) 6' HIGH CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND A 320 SQ.FT. EQUIPMENT SHELTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13931 EAST LOS ANGELES AVENUE (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 412 -0 -160 -300) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -5. APPLICANT: AIRTOUCH CELLULAR y BACKGROUND: On July 21, 1999, the City Council received a request from Airtouch Cellular to continue the hearing of Appeal 99 -1 on this project to August 18, 1999. This request was the third continuance of this item, which was initially approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 1999, and appealed on April 28, 1999. The prior hearings by the City Council were held on June 2, and July 21, 1999, with continuance requests based upon the need to bring more information forward to the City Council and to allow Airtouch Cellular to further evaluate the proposed site with their new consultant. At the meeting of June 2, 1999, in addition to the proposed continuance, City Council asked that supplemental information be provided to assist them in determining the appropriateness of the cellular facilities at this proposed location on Los Angeles Avenue, approximately 2,200 feet east of Spring Road on a residentially zoned site. The information requested is discussed in the following portions of this report. The applicant continues to request approval of the original proposed facilities at this location. Alternative sites are currently utilized by four other cellular providers with one site, Ventura County Waterworks tank location southeast of Moorpark College, currently the co- location site of three cellular service providers. 990818- stfV-cc.doc— &&1199 -1:02 PM 00000,E Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 2 Current Federal legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, limits local jurisdictions in their control of PCS (Personal Communications Service) facilities. A local government agency can not "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" cellular service but can institute reasonable siting and appearance standards. "Blanket prohibitions" and general bans, may not be instituted and carried out to individual decisions. There are a considerable number of legal decisions that have been made across the nation that uphold the right of a local jurisdiction to reasonably regulate the placement, size and aesthetics of PSC facilities. DISCUSSION - Proposed Project: The Planning Commission at their meeting of April 12, 1999, following the close of the public hearing and discussion on this matter, voted to approve Conditional Use Permit 98 -5 for the placement of fifteen (15) 6' high cellular antennas, construction of a 320 sq. ft. equipment building and the placement of a microwave dish antenna on a 6.1 acre hillside site. Adjacent to the equipment building will be a fenced service yard of approximately 77 sq. ft. (6' X 12'x8 ") enclosing air conditioners and a dry well. The total building/ service yard area is 397 -sq. ft. Access to the site is provided by a paved private easement, which also provides access to three residences (one on subject property) in the area. The last easterly) approximately 60 ft. of access roadway to the building site is an unpaved 8 ft. wide road leading to a turnaround /parking area for maintenance trucks. Following completion of construction, the applicant estimates that one trip to the site per month will be required. The 15 cellular antennas and the microwave dish will be placed on the hillside below the site of the building and turnaround. The lowest antenna location is approximately 110 feet above the elevation of Los Angeles Avenue, and the highest is 115 feet above Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed cellular antennas will be placed in three groups of five and have the general appearance of a rectangular panel. Each of these antennas (panels) is 13 inches wide and 4 ft. 4 inches in height with a depth or thickness of 12 inches. These panels will be mounted on a two inch diameter metal pole and will have a maximum height above ground level (to top of panel) of six (6) feet. The 11MOR— PRI —SERVI HOME— FOLDERSICLafleuAMIRTOUCH CELLULAR1990818 -stf rpt -mdoc 000003 Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 3 proposed microwave dish is 4 ft in diameter mounted on a separate pole with a maximum height (to top of dish) of six (6) feet. The antennas and support poles are proposed by the applicant to be painted to match the background of the site, which is a hillside. The Planning Commission adopted conditions require the painting of the equipment as well as the placement of landscaping behind the antennas and below the signal receiving area to blend the panels and facilities visually into the hillside. The proposed equipment building is 12'8" X 25' -4 ", for a total area of 321 sq. ft., with a height of 12 ft and a flat roof. This structure, which was required to be constructed of split face block, tan in color with integral color mortar will be located at the top of the hill behind the crest of the slope and will be partially dug into the hillside. Additionally, landscaping is proposed in front of this structure which when combined with the building coloration; flat roof and placement into the slope should minimize the visibility factor. The nearest off -site residence to any of the proposed antennas is 430 feet, however, concern over loss of property value and health effects are concerns that have been expressed over this proposal. City Council Reauested Information: The City Council on June 2, 1999, asked for information on several issues to assist in responding to the appeal of the proposal to place cellular antennas and microwave facilities on this residentially zoned site. City Council in desiring to respond to this application asked for information on the issues noted below. Attachment A, a memo on Wireless Communication Facilities provides a summary of a number of questions that Council asked. The following responses are provided to Council questions: Question: Location of other antennas in residential areas in the City. Answer: Currently, there are two locations in the City that have been approved for cellular or PCS facilities both of which are also the site of water infrastructure installations that serve the City. The location that has the majority of approved PCS facilities is the Ventura County 11MOR— PRI— SERVAHOME— FOLDERSICLafleur MIAIRTOUCH CELLULARMN18 -stf rpt -mdoc 000004 Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 4 Waterworks reservoir site southeast of Moorpark College, adjacent to and above Highway 118. This site which has three separate service providers includes: 1. Two 60 -foot tall monopole antennas, both with panels mounted on the monopole in a manner that they maintain the maximum height of 60 feet for one monopole and 62 feet for the second monopole. Additionally, there are also six (6) panel antennas approximately fourteen feet in height at this location. The site has been extensively landscaped, as part of the approval of these projects and view of these PCS installations should ultimately be significantly obscured. This site is zoned for Open Space (OS) . 2. The second site of an approved cellular installation is the Ventura County Waterworks tank site and administrative /corporate yard facility on Walnut Canyon Road, where a 60 foot tall monopole with 15 attached panels mounted with a maximum height of two (2) feet above the monopole (62 feet above ground) has been approved. Also attached to this monopole are three (3) whip antennas, which are mounted to a maximum 73 feet above ground level. This installation was required to be camouflaged to appear as a pine tree and other pine trees were required to be planted adjacent. This property is zoned for Rural Agriculture (RA -10 ac.) Question: Information on impacts to safety and health. Answer: The project applicant, Airtouch Cellular, has submitted (Attachment "B -1 ") information prepared by Dr. Joie Pierce Jones, concerning "Health and Safety issues related to Telecommunications ". Additionally, the 1996 Telecommunications Act directs that municipalities cannot deny or regulate cellular antennas due to environmental concerns about their radio emissions if the antennas comply with FCC rules on radio emissions. This limitation, however, may be without meaning since PCS and cellular antennas below certain power levels and located more than \lMOR_PRI —SERV( HOME— FOLDERSICLafleuAKMIRTOUCH CELLULARMN18 -stl rpt -mdoc �Illli Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 5 ten (10) meters above ground are Categorically Exempt from compliance with FCC rules. The subject antennas are mounted very close to ground level (approximately 2 feet above ground) and therefore should be in compliance with FCC requirements. Documents certifying compliance with FCC rules for this type of installation have not been submitted for this proposed project. Question: Standards for site location maintained by adjacent jurisdictions. Answer: As noted by the attached report on Wireless Communication Facilities (Attachment "A ") many of the adjacent Ventura County jurisdictions have procedures and criteria that are applicable to wireless communication facilities but only one adjacent jurisdiction, Thousand Oaks, actually has specific design criteria. All other agencies (Ventura County is preparing an ordinance) apply conditions based upon a site - specific request. Simi Valley allows facilities only within areas designated for water tanks, which are frequently adjacent to residential areas. The City of Thousand Oaks allows wireless facilities in industrial, commercial, residential and open space zones with different levels of permits and subject to the adopted design criteria relating to: neutral color, non - reflective surface, landscaping, integrated into architectural features such as a church steeple, not on a ridgeline etc. Although, the City of Thousand Oaks has guidelines for appearance or to camouflage the antenna's appearance, its application is dependent on the characteristics of the actual site selected for the installation. Camarillo does not have performance criteria and allows antennas in all zones including residential zoned areas. Question: Alternatives available to conceal the appearance of the antennas. Answer: The current proposed project involves the placement of a total of fifteen (15) panel antennas in three groups of five panels each on a 6.1 acre site. A microwave antenna is also proposed with a 4 -foot diameter dish. The antennas 11MOR _PRI_SERVIHOME— FOLDERS1CLafleur WIRTOUCH CELLULAM990818 -stf rpt -mdoc 00000 Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 6 are approximately thirteen (13) inches wide and 4 feet 4 inches tall and are mounted on two (2) inch poles to a maximum of six (6) feet above ground level. The microwave dish will also have a maximum height limit above ground of six (6) feet. Conditions of Planning Commission approval required painting of the antennas to match landscape screening as approved by the Director of Community Development and landscaping of the installations to create a backdrop for blending of the antennas into the vegetation thus minimizing their view. Landscaping in front of the antennas as necessary was also a requirement. Attachment "A" includes a variety of alternatives that are available to conceal cellular installation, including: designed to look like a tree, be part of a building design, or located in a less visible area. The proposed project as submitted; limits the size of the antennas, includes dispersal of the antennas across the site, none of the antennas are on the horizon. Question: Request photographs of the actual antennas proposed. Answer: As requested by City Council, the applicant has submitted several photographs or other exhibits to illustrate an actual installation (Attachment "C "). Several photographs illustrating before and after conditions at the proposed site with antennas superimposed on the after photos have been provided (Attachment "D "). Additionally as requested, photos of the actual antenna developed on a similar site have been submitted as has a detail sheet concerning the dimensions of the panel antenna. ALTERNATIVES: As previously noted in the Agenda Report for the City Council meeting of June 2, 1999, there are alternative locations that at least four competing service providers have found acceptable. Three of these providers (AT &T, Pacific Bell and Cox) have located at the Ventura County Water District reservoir site southeast of Moorpark College and one provider (Nextel) has located along Walnut Canyon Road north of Wicks Road. Either of these sites, based upon past determinations by the Planning Commission would appear to be less impacting to aesthetics in the community and viable from a location 1WOR_ PRI_ SERV IHOME_FOLDERS1CLafleurlMWIRTOUCH CELWLARl990818 -stf rpt- cc.doc 000007 Honorable City Council August 11, 1999 Page 7 perspective based upon service delivery needs. Other alternatives may include commercial or industrial locations where antennas may be incorporated into a building design or located in a manner where visibility from the public right -of -way or adjacent properties is not an issue. Additionally, co- location at one of the two sites where four other providers are currently located would seem the most logical choice for this applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to California State law, an to determine if the proposed project environment. It has been found that Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, of Small Structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff as deemed appropriate. evaluation has been conducted could significantly affect the the project is Categorically New Construction or Conversion ATTACHMENTS: A. Wireless Communication facilities Staff Report B -1. Health & Safety Issues - Dr. Joie Pierce Jones B -2. Existing Installation /Antenna Detail Photos C. Actual Installation D. Project Photos, before and after E. Section 704, 1996 Telecommunications Act F. City Council Agenda Report dated 5/26/99 G. Bradley letter dated 6/22/99 H. Ron White facsimile dated 6/1/99 I. Mr. & Mrs. May letter dated 5/30/99 (Note: Color photos of Attachment C & D to City Council only) U MOR_ PRI— SERWiOME— FOLDERSICLafleurlMIAIRTOUCH CELLULAR1990818 -stf rpt -mdoc 11111;, City of Moorpark Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Development FROM: Craig Malin, Assistant Planner Jeremy Ochsenbein, Planning Technician DATE: August 9, 1999 SUBJECT: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES BACKGROUND The communications industry has experienced tremendous growth as a result of the increasing popularity of cellular phones and related technologies. This growth has created a need for more infrastructure to serve the demand for wireless communication service. This infrastructure often creates negative impacts on surrounding areas. For this reason, many jurisdictions have begun to develop zoning and design standards to minimize the impact of these facilities upon the population. SUb24ARY This report summarizes the information currently available to the City of Moorpark regarding wireless communication facilities. This includes a summary of the types of facilities currently being utilized by providers, details about previous projects in Moorpark, and the administrative practices of other jurisdictions for wireless facilities. Two main areas of research were utilized for this report. First, information pertaining to previous wireless communication projects was compiled from the City's records. Second, seventeen jurisdictions in Southern California were surveyed by phone about their requirements for wireless communication facilities. Previous Projects in Moorpark Prior to the Air Touch application, the City received four other applications for wireless communication facilities. Each of these applications involved the construction of monopole antennas, approximately 60 feet in height and related equipment. cell memo.doc ATTACHMENT It A if 000009 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 2 August 9, 1999 All four projects were approved with conditions limiting the length of the permit. Two were required to have additional landscaping added to screen the facility. For one project, the monopole and antennas were conditioned to resemble a Pine tree. Survey of Other Jurisdictions The seventeen jurisdictions surveyed for this research were chosen for several reasons. First, jurisdictions located near Moorpark, in either Ventura or Los Angeles County were chosen because of the likelihood of similar issues. Second, jurisdictions that are situated along freeway corridors were chosen because of the higher likelihood of recent wireless communication projects. Finally, jurisdictions with similar topographic features were chosen to examine physical issues surrounding wireless communication projects. These cities were asked a number of questions regarding their policies concerning wireless communication facilities. Additionally, the types of permit process utilized for these facilities and the design criteria, if any, utilized in the approval process was reviewed. The most common permitting process for wireless communication facilities is the use of Conditional Use Permits. However, a number of cities already have or are currently working on specific zoning ordinances that deal explicitly with these types of projects. For example, the city of Thousand Oaks has specific design criteria for communication facilities. There appears to be no consensus regarding the zoning designation that is appropriate for these types of projects. Several cities restrict these facilities to commercial and industrial areas. Others, place no restrictions in terms of zoning, but rather, deal with each proposal on a site to site basis. However, most cities place a preference on the use of sites that already have antennas, water tanks, or other visual impacts, where mitigation measures can be implemented. Generally, the impact of these facilities on the aesthetics of the site and the view sheds of surrounding areas is the predominant concern. As a result, many cities have developed design criteria for these types of projects. The design standard that is most practiced involves restrictions on the color of the facilities. cell memc.doc 000010 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 3 August 9, 1999 Typically, cities require that the antennas and related equipment blend with the environment through the use of neutral colors and non - reflective materials. The use of landscaping, particularly trees and shrubs, as mitigation for visual impacts is commonplace, often as a secondary measure. many cities require all wires and cables to be buried or hidden by casings. Fences, walls, and other visual barriers are also mitigation strategies utilized by the surveyed cities. Recommendations Using the information obtained through the research described above, a number of design considerations have been proposed. These considerations include a discussion of the appropriate approval process for wireless facilities, appropriate locations for these projects, and desired screening methods. DISCUSSION The following is a summary of the information obtained regarding the approval of wireless communication facilities in Moorpark and other jurisdictions. This report has been separated into four sections: types of wireless facilities; previous projects in Moorpark; practices of other jurisdictions regarding wireless communication facilities; and alternative design solutions for wireless facilities. Types of Wireless Facilities "Wireless communication facilities" is a general term that covers a variety of different uses including radio, television, cellular phone, specialized mobile radio (SMR), personal communication (PCS), and microwave systems. This report focuses primarily on the types of facilities utilized for cellular phone, SMR, and PCS projects. Cellular phone, specialized mobile radio, and personal communication systems utilize two main types of site. The size of equipment and the number of radios distinguish these types from each other. Macro cell sites are larger, generally serving larger coverage areas. They have more radios on site and may have taller antennas. Micro cell sites are smaller, with smaller coverage are and fewer radios. The typical macro cell site consists of either one large antenna, called a monopole, or an array of smaller panel cell memo . doc 000011 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 4 August 9, 1999 antennas. Monopoles can be as tall as 601, whereas panel antennas are generally around 4' in height. These sites also have a 200 to 400 sq. ft. equipment shelter with radios. These shelters can be buried; however, the operation of the system can be negatively effected. Macro cells usually provide a coverage area of 0.5 to 5 miles. Micro cells typically utilize existing structures, for example utility poles and buildings, as mounting structures. These projects utilize either omnidirectional (whip) , which range from 2 to 14' high, or panel antennas. The related radio equipment for these facilities are often kept within the building or in a cabinet that can also be mounted on the structure. Micro cells generally provide coverage up to 0.5 mile. They are often utilized to augment systems in dead zones or on narrow, twisting roads. Wireless Facilities in Moorpark This section summarizes the background of all communication facilities approved by the City of Moorpark and describes what, if any, conditions were adopted to require the installation of landscaping to screen the antennas and any accessory structure. Currently, the City requires applicants to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (approved by the Planning Commission) for wireless communication facilities. Applicants are currently required to submit a completed application, a site plan, elevations, a view analysis, information regarding colors and textures, and a landscape plan as part of the review process. APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED: The following applications for wireless communication facilities have been submitted for processing to the City of Moorpark. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -1 Applicant: Cellular One (now AT &T) Request: Application for a 60' monopole with eight panel antennas mounted near the top of the antenna in two arrays of four antennas each. The tops of the antennas are one foot below the top of the pole (59'). Each antenna panel is approximately four feet in height by one foot in width. The applicant also constructed a 336 sq.ft. equipment building on the 1,687 sq.ft. leased area of the Ventura County Waterworks College Watertank cell memo.doc 000012 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 5 August 9, 1999 site (1.304 acres in size), the 118 Freeway east of Collins Drive and north of Approval: Application was approved Conditions: The CUP was approved (with extensions allowed) and was on center) on the perimeter of the as submitted for a period of five years required to plant trees (20' Waterworks site Zoning: Open Space (OS) Environmental Document: Determined Negative Declaration (PC Application Date: April Approval Date: July 24, Resolution of Approval: Status: Completed 95 -308, July 25, 1995 to require a Mitigated 24, 1995) 1995 by the Planning Commission PC 95 -308 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -1 Applicant: Pacific Bell Mobile Services Request: Application for a 60' monopole with six panel antennas mounted near the top of the pole in three arrays of two antennas each. The top of each antenna panel is 60', level with the top of the pole. Each antenna panel measures five feet three inches in height by one foot in width. Applicant also received approval for two equipment cabinets on the 400 sq.ft. site at the Ventura County Waterworks College Watertank site. Approval: Application was approved as submitted Conditions: Project was conditioned for a period of five years (with extensions allowed). No additional landscaping on site was required Zoning: Open Space (OS) Environmental Document: Determined to be Categorically Exempt (Class 3) Application Date: June 5, 1996 Approval Date: April 14, 1997 by the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval: PC 96 -334 Status: Completed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97 -4 Applicant: Nextel Communications Request: Application for a 60' monopole with 15 panel antennas mounted near the top of the pole in three arrays of five antennas each. The height of the antenna panels is 621, two feet above the top of the pole. Each antenna panel measures four feet in height and one foot in width. Three omni (whip) antennas are mounted on top of the support structure for the panel antennas. Each omni antenna is 13' in height, with a total cell memo . doc 000013 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 6 August 9, 1999 height of 73'. Applicant also constructed a 200 sq.ft. equipment building on the 1,200 sq.ft. leased area in the southwest corner of the 22.08 acre Ventura County Waterworks site off Walnut Canyon Road Approval: Monopole and antennas was approved as submitted with the condition that the monopole be redesigned to resemble a Pine tree. Conditions: Project was approve to required the planting of trees to screen the antennas which would reach a height of 60' at maturity Zoning: Rural Agricultural - 10 acres minimum (RA- 10 acres) Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt (Class 3) Application Date: May 12, 1997 Approval Date: September 8, 1997 by the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval: PC 97 -343 Status: Completed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97 -5 Applicant: Cox Communications Request: application was for a 57' high monopole with 12 antennas mounted on top of the pole in three arrays of four antennas each. The height of the antennas is 631, six feet greater than the top of the pole. Each antenna panel measures four feet in height by one foot in width. Six equipment cabinets were also located on the 400 sq.ft. leased area in the Ventura County Waterworks College Watertank site Approval: In response to Staff requirement that the monopole and antennas be designed to resemble a Pine tree, the applicant resubmitted plans for construction of 6 ground mounted antennas, each antenna being six feet in height, eight inches in width and mounted on a metal pole with an overall height for each antenna of 14'. Three antennas were located in the southwest corner of the site facing southeast and three antennas are on the west side of the site facing southwest Conditions: Submission of a landscape plan including planting a tree for screening behind each 14' antenna, planting shrubs to screen the chain link fence, planing and irrigation on slopes where antennas are proposed and to install a tree (60' height at maturity) on the perimeter of the waterworks site wherever a gap of 20' exists between trees Zoning: Open Space (OS) Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt (Class 3) Application Date: December 23, 1997 Approval Date: April 28, 1998 by the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval: PC 98 -352 cell memo.doc 000014 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 7 August 9, 1999 Status: Project is built CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -5 Applicant: Air Touch Cellular Request: Installation of 15 ground mounted antennas, each antenna measures four foot four inches in height by one foot _n width and is mounted on a metal pole with each antenna having an overall height of six feet on a hillside at 13931 E. Los Angeles Ave. with a height of approximately 90'. The antennas are proposed to be located in three groups of five antennas, each group of five antennas facing southwest, south and east respectively. A 320 sq. ft. equipment building is also proposed. Approval: Action has not been taken on the permit. City Council appeal of the Planning Commission decision is pending Conditions: Action has not been taken on the permit Zoning: Rural Exclusive - one acre minimum (RE lac) Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt (Class 3) Application Date: November 16, 1998 Approval Date: Action has not been taken of the permit Resolution of Approval: Action has not been taken on the permit Status: Action has not been taken on the permit Approval Practices and Guidelines of Other Jurisdictions This section summarizes the zoning requirements and conditions for project approval for wireless communication facilities in other jurisdictions. Simi Valle The City of Simi Valley only allows wireless communication facilities within areas zoned for water tank sites. These sites are sometimes visible from residential zones. Simi Valley reviews these projects through a "major" Zone Clearance and does place design conditions on antennas, specifically encouraging newer antenna designs that have smaller diameters. VPntrnra The City of Ventura does not permit wireless communication facilities within residential zones. However, these structures are permitted in adjacent areas within the view of residential zones. Prior to approval of projects, Ventura requires that tne applicant go through a design review. In the past, Ventura has cell memo.doc 000015 Craig Malin and Jeremy ochsenbein Page 8 August 9, 1999 required mitigation such as painting to match the surrounding environment and the use of screens on the sides of buildings. Thousand Oaks The City of Thousand Oaks has adopted specific standards and guidelines for wireless communication facilities (see Attachmen-�i A) . These facilities are permitted in industrial and commercial zones with a Development Permit. Thousand Oaks also allows these facilities in residential, open space, and public lands zones with a Special Use Permit, which is analogous to a Conditional Use Permit in Moorpark. Thousand Oaks has specific design criteria regarding these facilities. On hillsides, the facility is to be located to avoid silhouetting on the ridgeline and shall blend in with the existing environment or landscaping. Antennas are required to have a neutral color with non - reflective surfaces. These facilities are subject to the same height limits as buildings. Thousand Oaks also promotes the use of other types of visual mitigation, such as screens. (`amari l l n Camarillo allows wireless communication facilities in all zones. These facilities require a Conditional Use Permit. Generally, the conditions placed upon these facilities are aimed towards minimizing the visual impacts of these facilities. Camarillo encourages the colocation of wireless communication facilities. Agoura Hills Agoura Hills also requires that wireless communication facilities obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Antennas are only permitted in Business Park zones, except for those located adjacent to or across from residential zones. Antennas are required to not adversely effect the visual aesthetics of the site. A recent project (see Attachment B) included conditions regarding the color of the antenna and a requirement that all wires and cables be placed so as not to be visible. Santa Clarita Santa Clarita recently passed an ordinance governing wireless communication projects (see Attachment C). Depending on the size of project and zoning of the site, a wireless communication cell memo . doc 00001G Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 9 August 9, 1999 facility either requires a conditional use permit or a minor use permit. Projects are encouraged to minimize impact on the visual environment. Architectural compatibility, color, and texture are among the design conditions for those facilities attached to buildings. For ground structures, paint, texture, landscaping, and other structures that camouflage are conditions placed on projects. Ground mounted antennas are encouraged in Santa Clarita. Preference is also given to those facilities that are co- located with similar facilities. Canvon Lake Canyon Lake requires that proposed wireless communication projects obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The most recent project was reduced in height to minimize visual impact (see Attachment D). Additionally, the site was required to be complementary to the existing aesthetics in the area by utilizing natural colored concrete. Eucalyptus trees, Sugar Bush plants, and Yellow Trumpet Vines were required to provide a screen for the facility and the surrounding fence. Santa Barbara Santa Barbara (see Attachment E) generally requires a Conditional Use Permit for these projects. While these wireless facilities can be located in all zones, there is a stated preference that they be primarily directed to commercial and industrial areas. Likewise, Santa Barbara prefers that these facilities be located at existing sites or co- located with antennas of other companies. These projects are discouraged in public rights -of -way adjacent to residential zones. Facilities are to be designed with equipment consisting of the latest, most visually pleasing technology. In terms of screening and visual enhancements, Santa Barbara prefers that antennas themselves be designed to minimize visual impacts through color, casings and walls. Landscaping is to be used only as a secondary means to minimize visual impacts. A maintenance and irrigation plan is also required. Ojai Ojai has a specific ordinance regarding wireless service facilities. The construction of these projects requires a Conditional Use Permit. Included within this ordinance is a set of design standards (see Attachment F). Towers are to maintain cell memo.doc 000017 Craig Malin and Jeremy ochsenbein Page 10 August 9, 1999 a galvanized steel finish or be painted a neutral color. Materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping are to be used that will allow facilities to blend in with their natural environment. Artificial lighting is prohibited as well as siting facilities along ridgelines within the view shed of Ojai. F7 1 l mrnra Fillmore also has specific guidelines regarding cellular facilities (see Attachment G) Facilities are prohibited in front and side yard setbacks. Co- location of facilities is encouraged. Facilities adjacent to residentially zoned property are to be placed a minimum of 25 feet from the residential property. Landscaping, fencing, and other improvements can be required at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Fillmore also requires that facilities be painted J n a single, neutral, non - glossy color and that wiring be placed underground where possible. Oceanside Oceanside has recently updated its zoning code regarding these facilities (see Attachment H) . Minor antenna projects can now be processed at the counter. Major projects require a Conditional Use Permit. The determination between major and minor is described within the Zoning Ordinance. Oceanside places height and size limitations on these facilities. Wireless communication facilities also must be colored or painted to blend with the surrounding background. Westlake Village Westlake Village requires a Conditional Use Permit for wireless communication projects. The conditions imposed upon a recent project (see Attachment I) included a requirement that the antenna be painted in a color that would allow it to blend with the surrounding environment. There was also a requirement for 3' screening walls surrounding the equipment. ra1ara-_ a-_ In 1998, Calabasas passed an ordinance that specifically dealt with wireless communication projects (see Attachment J) . A conditional use permit is required for these types of projects. Wireless facilities have been prohibited along ridgelines and in cell memo.doc 000018 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 11 August 9, 1999 residential zones. The city also requires that within certain areas, residential sites in non - residential zones, the Old Town overlay zone, historic properties, parks, and scenic corridors, the only allowed facilities are "stealth facilities." These are facilities that are designed to blend in with the surroundir_c environment. Calabasas has also issued design standards. Facilities mus_ have subdued colors and non - reflective materials. These facilities also should be screened to the extent possible. Ventura Count Ventura County is currently writing an ordinance to cover wireless communication projects. The draft staff report was not available. Other Jurisdictions Lake Elsinore, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Paula were al= contacted regarding their zoning requirements, but have not responded. Design Considerations This section contains language for conditions of approval that may be considered for application to wireless projects. While these conditions have been written with cellular facilities mind, they are applicable to television, radio, and microwave facilities as well. The following design guidelines should be utilized for wireless facilities: • Landscaping shall be installed either behind or in front of each antenna /support pole to provide screening from all directions for all antennas located upon the ground or not a building. • Each antenna /support pole shall be painted to match the adjacent background. • Any antenna over 20' in height shall be architectural, -y camouflaged to resemble natural vegetation, such as trees cell memo.doc 000019 Craig Malin and Jeremy Ochsenbein Page 12 August 9, 1999 common to the area, or shall be incorporated into the building architectural design. • Omni or whip antennas, when allowed, shall be integrated into the building design in the form of panels complementing the building design or trim. • Antennas or support poles over 20' in height shall not be located on the valley floor as depicted in the General Plan Land Use Element. • Ground level antennas are encouraged to be located upon the slopes of hills rather than hilltops or the level ground at the base of the hill. The tops of the antennas must be below the ridgeline unless the applicant can conclusively show that the antenna can be integrated into an existing structure or landscape feature rendering the antenna not visible. • Co- location of facilities is encouraged. • All utility lines must either be under grounded or incorporated into the building structure. • Antennas shall not be located in public rights of way. • Landscaping shall be installed to shield any building or equipment cabinet. cell memo.doc 000020 RECEIVED U G ? 1999 Biographical Data Sheet Joie Pierce ,Jones February 1997 Joie Pierce Jones was born in Brownwood, Texas on March 4, 1941. He attended public schools in Abilene, Texas and graduated from Abilene High School in 1959. He received the B. A. degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1963 with a concentration in liberal arts and mathematics. In 1965, he received the M. A. degree in applied mathematics from the same institution. He received the Ph.D. degree in physics from Brown University in 1970. As an undergraduate, he worked summers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology. While a graduate student and Research Assistant at Brown, he was also Special Lecturer in Physics at Providence College. From 1970 to 1975, Dr. Jones was associated with the consulting firm of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. At BBN, he was a Senior Scientist and served as Market Leader for medical ultrasonics. While at BBN, Dr. Jones was also a Special Lecturer at Harvard Medical School (in radiology), and an Assistant Adjunct Professor at Harvard University (in applied mathematics). From July 1975 to July 1977, Dr. Jones was associated with Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. He was Associate Professor of Biophysics and Director of the Ultrasonics Research Laboratory at the School of Medicine and had a joint appointment in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. Since July 1977, Dr. Jones has been a Professor of Radiological Sciences at the University of California Irvine. He served as Director of the Graduate Program in Radiological Sciences from 1977-1982 and 1984 -1991. In high school, he won first place in the National Science Fair for designing and constructing a solid propellant rocket which carried radiation measuring equipment to an altitude of 52 miles- -still a world record for an amateur rocket. At the University of Texas, he was elected to membership in Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Eta Sigma, and Sigma Xi. He was also named a Junior Fellow of the University of Texas and was elected by the student body to serve in the Student Assembly. Currently, Dr. Jones is active in a number of professional organizations, including the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, the Acoustical Society of America, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He is presently on the editorial board of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biolggy. Dr. Jones served as founding President of the Orange County Chapter of the Acoustical Society of America, President of UCI Theater Guild, and President of Laguna Beach Chamber Music Society. He is on the Board of Governors of the California Wine and Food Society. Dr. Jones also serves as a consultant in acoustics, ultrasonics, medical imaging, and science in general, to a number of private corporations and government agencies. He was a founding general partner for Computer Science Systems (1978 -), Of Food and Wine (1982 -), Meditherm Associates Ltd. (1983 - 1985), Spar Technologies (1987 - 1990), and Surgisonics (1991 -). Dr. Jones was appointed by President Carter to the Presidential Science and Technology Advisory Committee which met regularly at the White House during President Carter's term of office (1977- 1981). Dr. Jones' list of publications contains over 200 items, including 3 books and 15 patents. A recent book (Z. H. Cho, J. P. Jones, M. Singh, Foundations of Medical Imaging, John Wiley and Sons, 1993) has become a standard graduate level text. Dr. Jones has a wide range of professional interests which include medical ultrasonics, medical imaging, ultrasonic tissue characterization, acoustical microscopy, general applications of ultrasound technology, the physiological effects of electromagnetic and ultrasound irradiation, nonlinear acoustics, the popularization of science and technology, and studies of the relationships between science, technology, and society. OOU0L1. ATTACHMENT " B-I it 3 m 3 0 m :.- CID m 3 cc Q PRESENTATION ON a HEALTH &SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS z Notes prepared by: 0 Joie P. Jones 0 o Professor of Radiological Sciences 4 University of California Irvine m OBJECTIVES • Develop a better understanding of the health and safety issues related to wireless communications • Define the role the city can and should play in the regulation of telecommunications Review site specific issues as an example 0 0 0 0 PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) • Wireless Communications & Cellular Technology • Biological Effects of EMF • Regulatory Standards • Health &Safety Issues • Site Specific Issues 0 0 0 0 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF9S) 0 0 Cn WHAT IS ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION ? • The form in which energy is transmitted through space using a varying electromagnetic field (EMF). • EMF: Produced by a moving charge. • Consider simple experiments with wire, battery, and magnet. 0 0 c 0 EMF DEVELOPMENTS • Michael Faraday. 1820's & 1830's: EM induction; invented electric generator. • James Clark Maxwell. Mid- 1800's: developed classical electrodynamics. • Heinrich Hertz. 1886: transmitted & received "radio waves." • Guglielmo Marconi. 1895: "wireless telegraph." 1901: 1st transatlantic radio 0 communication. G 0 0 c 0 ah The Electromagnetic Spectrum Humans are Exposed to Broad Range of Electromagnetic Frequencies Nonionizing Radiation Ionizing Radiation 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 101° 10u 10'4 10's 101 10i7 101 10» 1010 1021 1022 Hz Hz Hz kHz kHz kHz MHz MHz MHz GHz GHz GHz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Frequency Extra-low Radio Microwave +rn�arw frequency Visible light (ELF) Electric Video AAA FM radio. U F N. power display redo VHF N con" terminals te"hones X -rays. gamma rays Mkrawave Hest Sun ovens, police lamps lamps radar. satelifte Source: Electric Power Research Institute ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION • IONIZING RADIATION * can ionize molecules * effects can accumulate *no threshold • NON - IONIZING RADIATION • cannot ionize or breakdown atoms • effects do not accumulate * hazardous only above a certain threshold 0 (e. g., sunlight/moonlight) 0 0 a r� Measuring Cellular Fields ■ The unit used for quantifying RF fields from cellular antennas is power density expressed in terms of: microwatts per square centimeter (µW/CM2) ■ A microwatt is one - millionth square centimeter is a squa 0.4 inches on a side. ofa watt and a e approximately ■ Power density tells us the strength of cellular telephone signals. 0 0 0 0 WE LIVE IN A SEA OF EMF • BACKGROUND RADIATION: 1 µWatt/cM2 -100 mWatt/cm2 • SOURCES OF RADIATION sun, earth, stars, humans (0.3 µW/CM2) radio, TV, electrical devices 0 0 c WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY 0 0 c c r CELLULAR SYSTEM . A mr-.. 0 0 C C', C., Local Teloo 000 ©� FAI 12 � lie T olophone S witching Office, 0 a k -' Cellular Telephone Rad'oofrequency Fields ■ Base stations operate in range of 869 MHz to 894 MHz. ■ Base stations use relatively low power, typically no more than 100 watts per channel. ■ Radiofrequency fields do not ionize molecules in tissue like x -rays or nuclear radiation. ■ Effects do not accumulate in the body like those of ionizing radiation. ■ RF fields only become hazardous when they exceed a threshold level. Other Wireless Communications ■ Enhanced specialized mobile radio (EMSR) 900 MHz range, similar to cellular but used largely for dispatch, paging, etc. ■ Personal communications systems (1900 MHz) will use higher density cell sites. 0 0 0 0 rrt ---- ----mss'__ -- OPERATING FREQUENCIES - RADIO/MICROWAVE MHz (101 Hz) 0.55 - 1.605 AM Radio 46.6 - 47 Cordless Phones 54 - 108 Channels 2 -6 TV 88 - 108 FM Radio 174 - 216 Channels 7 -13 TV 470 - 890 Channels 14 -83 TV 820 - 890 Cellular Radio (Channels 70 -83 TV) 13,800 - 231,000 Microwave Communications 2565000 - 275,000 Radio Astronomy 0 0 0 0 w 0 OPERATING POWER LEVELS WATTS 0.1 - 3 1 _ 100 100 - 1000 7,000 to 50,000 to 100,000 2,455,000 to 57000,000 0 0 0 a c� ,i Microwave Communications Cellular Site Amateur & Citizen Band Radio KCRW (89.9) FM Radio AM Radio FM Radio KCET (channel 28) TV TV BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EMF's tt POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEMS (1) • REMEMBER: * Emissions are non - ionizing EMF's * Emissions are low power radio waves * Effects occur only above a threshold * Any effects are not cumulative 0 0 0 G Cl) POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEMS (2) • Hundreds of scientific studies have been carried out over past 50 years • Thresholds for biological effects are well established • Standards for exposure widely accepted 0 0 Some Example Standards for Radlofrequency Fields ■ American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ■ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) ■ National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) ■ International (IRPA) 0 0 c c Radiation Protection Association J BASIS FOR STANDARD • Continuous, critical review of world wide scientific literature • Thresholds defined • Safety factor: 100's of times below threshold • Exposure limit for "uncontrolled environments ": added safety factor of 50 0 0 0 J ANSI STANDARDS • At 900 MHz: 579 µW/CM2 • At 1935 MHz: 1280 µW/CM2 0 0 0 a REFERENCE MATERIAL • M. Fischetti, "The Cellular Telephone Scare," IEEE Spectrum, June, 1993, pp 43 -47. • C. Polk & E Postow (eds), CRC Handbook of Effects of Electromagnetic Biological E Fields, 2nd g edition, CRC Press, 1996. • Research conducted over the past 16 years by Dr. Martin Meltz, UT Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas. 0 0 a REGULATORY STANDARDS 0 0 a c 1996 Telecommunications Act ■ Requires 6, 1996 FCC to issue new RF rules by August ■ State and local governments will retain general authority in "placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities" but can no longer deny permits based on radiofrequency field levels. 0 0 0 0 State and Local Governments • Cannot set RF standards more stringent than those adopted by FCC in siting of "personal wireless service facilities." • Cannot "unreasonably discriminate" among cellular providers but can favor some applicants on basis of aesthetic, visual or safety concerns. • Cannot ban cellular facilities entirely- siting decisions must be made on case -by -case basis. • Must handle siting requests within a "reasonable period of time." • Must have written record of any decision denying the placment, construction or modification of cellular facilities. 0 0 0 0 HEALTH &SAFETY ISSUES *4 MY 44 FEET 1 i X00 i00 / \ 100 8 FEET ANSI STANDARD8 PROPOSED FACIUTV am � �uav rtuum� 100 WATTS 100 WATTS ANTENNA EMISSION AT FULL POWER HOUSEHOLD LIGHT BULB POWER DENSITY COMPARISON • N1CnoWATTS / ckO 0 0 0 0 ARE CELL SITES SAFE ? (Does the EM radiation produced by a cell site pose any health risk ?) There is no scientific evidence to suggest any harmful effects associated with the utilization of a cellular telecommunication ° facility. G SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES a 0 0 CA IA ALL HEALTH &SAFETY ISSUES MEASURED BY COMPLIANCE WITH FCC RF EXPOSURE STANDARDS ( —ANSI) 0 0 a RELATED ISSUES • Cumulative effect of other sites • Proper grounding • Proper equipment installation and operation 0 0 c 0 cry c� Iv1 = Whalen & Company, Inc. Airtouch Project Office TRANSMITTAL To: Wayne Loftus From: John Beke Date: August 4, 1999 Re: Sample photos of Airtouch Antennas cc: File Wayne, please find four additional photosheets for insertion into the council packets. Photographed is an Airtouch cellular site located on Marriott Hotel property in San Dimas, California. This is a good example because the antennas are the same length as the proposed antennas and a microwave dish is present as proposed by Airtouch. This example is similarly located on a hillside with two differences. First, the example shows seven antennas per sector whereas Airtouch proposes five per sector. Second, the example shows the shelter at the base of the slope whereas Airtouch's shelter is partially buried into the slope and not visible from Los Angeles Avenue. RECEIVED AUG 0 5 1999 City of Moorpark Community Development ATTACHMENT " C " 000654 357 Van Ness Avenue Suite 150 Torrance, CA 90501 Tel: 310- 783 -6444 Fax: 310-783-7477 r, 0X8 Whalen & Company, Inc. AirTouch Cellular Proiect Office Hillside mounted antennas and shelter Marriott Hotel property in San Dimas, I -210 at Via Verde Seven Antennas per sector shown, Airtouch proposes five per sector Hillside mounted antennas Marriott Hotel property in San Dimas, I -210 at Via Verde Seven Antennas per sector shown, Airtouch proposes five per sector Rev: 3 Created on 08/04/99 11:41 AM C:AMy Documents \Sites \Moorpark Example Photos.doc 000055 Polarization linear, vertical linear, vertical Gain dBd (dBi) 11 (13) 13 (15) Horizontal -3dB beamwidth 850 85° Front -to -back ratio >30 dB >30 dB Vertical -3dB beamwidth 250 150 Electrical Downtilt 0 0 Nominal Impedance 50 ohm 50 ohm VSWR <1.5:1 <1.5:1 Maximum input power 50OW 500 W Intermodulation products(2Tx @20 W) < -103 dBm < -103 dBm Height 31.5" (.8m) 52" (1.32m) Width 13" (.33m) 13" (.33m) Depth 11.4" (.29m) 11.4!'(.29m) Weight 12.1 lb (5.1 kg) 17.4 lb (7.9kg) Survival wind speed 156 mph (70m /s) 156 mph (70m /s) Maximum wind area 2.7 sq ft (.25 sq m) 4.5 sq ft (.42 sq m) Max. wind load @ 100 mph (C =1) 44 Ibf. (194N) 73 Ibf. (326N) RECEIVED AUG 2 1999 '!evil.�mnn. r I� L 0,33T, i I'd I.1 i� wi I� I', Iii FI �� F 1�9 al W d 7129.20 o6�mm + Part Number Guide: ex: 7129.14.XX.00 Electrical Downtilt Type of Connector .05 - N Connector .22 - E Connector .33 - 7/16 DINConnector E 7129.16 m60 -120mm 000046 ALLGON INFORMATION: Base Station Call 1- 888- Aligon 1 Antennas Page 23 Allgon Log Periodic • Industry Norm • Wide band performance covering AMPS, GSM, & SMR • Proven 10 year Track Record • Workhorse of the Cellular Industry ❑ World Class Manufacturing ❑ Problem Free Design ❑ Trail Blazer of Front -to -Back ❑ Used as the F to B Figure of Merit ❑ Used in : Europe', Asia, North America, Central America, and South America. Our log periodic is designed in a highly repeatable process that is so precise that absolutely no tuning is required. No adjustments are made because with Allgon quality built in by design, no adjustments are nec- essary. For long life and problem free performance, Allgon uses a robust mechanical design. Two high strength plates of metal are fastened together to form an extremely rugged package. The mechanical strength is independent of the radome, which acts only to physically protect the elements and form a weather shield for the antenna. Proper use of materials and their structure ensures performance integrity. In antennas the electrical perfor- mance is directly related to mechanical performance. The choice of radome material is crucial as it acts as a window between the radiating elements and the coverage area. Our LIV stabilized PVC radome is resistant to moisture absorption. Further our radomes can withstand mechanical stresses, even at low tem- peratures and long exposure to LIV radiation. For corrosion inhibition, we use aircraft quality aluminum alloy that is inherently resistant to corrosion that might be caused by the environment. The Allgon Log Periodic is known to be the most consistent performing antenna on the market today. While others have only a select few models with high Front to Back, Allgon's high Front to Back ratio is unmatched over a complete selection of gains and azimuth opening angle. The select hardware for the Allgon Log Periodic is 7/16 DIN Connector made of only the highest quality acid proof stainless N Connector steel, and is available in non tilt and mechanical tilt to EIA Flange Connector a pipe. For more information please see page 55. Allgon prides itself on stringent testing requirements with conservative, yet realistic claims of the performance of our product offering. For more information on testing procedures, see page 56. Our front -to -back ratios are specified for ±20° from 180° (worst case) to 0 °. RECEIVED •� ALLGON 2 1999 00005171 INFORMATION: Base Station AUG Call 1- 888 - Allgon 1 Antennas Page 17 ... nn rnirn�nmon•n.Ma•+mnr' a I"*,w'�t77'qmw 44 IK' TIT O - O A I R T 0 U C H Celluhr MOORPARMICTORIA 13931 LOS ANGELES AVE., MOORPARK, CA r rr � t .Y• �1� ,�� �•' it 41 ! uw` ti , ON �,q M AFTER NOTE: Screening vegetation in front of the antenna arrays is not shown in this view to illustrate the components of the antenna facility; these antennas will be screened by bushes. VIEW 1 LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARD SITE FROM LOS ANGELES AVE. Ardt f s `, �.n�it.'�...n,�,y •ti pr, y�`���i Pit il. `it • t < ` o�, 7�y d YJ�3 �r 3. y�� � r. t • • L- _ I z L a�- sai i it � - `„,. � =� K , •�. �±�•�,::: - r ,�...�,.� AM ""fir '111"1' Ili 111111111, t `cr lot,' i iaw "II j' "''1, AFTER V P Mx'' rx�,yy i ' O O AIRTOUCH Cellular MOORPARMICTORIA 13931 LOS ANGELES AVE., MOORPARK, CA NOTE: Screening vegetation in front of the antenna arrays is not shown in this view to illustrate the components of the antenna facility; these antennas will be screened by bushes. VIEW 3 VIEW OF SITE LOOKING NORTH FROM CONCRETE BATCH PLANT VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT.1.11 T T o 1, K E Y S A T I. A w Section 704 of 1996 Act Added 47 U.S.C.A. Section 332 (c) (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY.- - (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY. -- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothino in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless sc,A,ice facilities. (B) LIMITATIONS (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof- - (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service 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. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, continence an action in any court ofcompetent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. (c) DEFINITIONS.-- For purposes of this paragraph-- (1) the term "personal wireless services" means commercial mobile services, unlicenced wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; (ii) the term "personal wireless service facilities" means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term "unlicenced wireless service" means the offering of telecomm unications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct -to -home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)). ti704 of the Act, uncodified, states: (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS. -- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commissio, shall complete action in ET Docket 93 -62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmenta, effects of radio frequency emissions. ATTACHMENT 11 E It 000G 111 VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETTI.111 'N ' T �� 6 N 11 1' S :% l L A W (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY. -- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights -of -way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that arc dependent, in whole Or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights -of -way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, Or the culTent or planned use of the property, rights -of -way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights -of -way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. Note: Much of the language helpful to municipalities on the interpretation and application of Section 704 appears in the relevant portion of the Conference Committee Report dealing with Section 704. For copies of this portion of the Committee Report, contact John Pestle or Charles Ash at 616- 336 -6000. :O DM ATC DOCS \G RR\310665\ 1 -24- 0000GS AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK To: Honorable City Council From: Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Development/400, Date: May 26, 1999 (CC Meeting of 6- 02 -99) Subject: CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT (15) 6' HIGH CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND A 320 SQ. FT EQUIPMENT SHELTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13931 EAST LOS ANGELES AVE ON THE APPLICATION OF AIR TOUCH CELLULAR (APN 512 -0 -160 -300) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -5. BACKGROUND: On April 28, 1999, an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to grant approval for fifteen (15) 6' high cellular antennas was filed by the City Council at their special meeting on that date. This appeal was filed within sixteen (16) calendar days of the decision by the Planning Commission, as required by Section 17.44.090 of the Municipal Code. The project subject of this appeal is located on the north side of Los Angeles Ave approximately 2,200 ft east of Spring Road and was approved subject to conditions by the Planning commission at their public hearing held on April 12, 1999. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission at their meeting of April 12, 1999, following the close of the public hearing and discussion on this matter, voted to approve Conditional Use Permit 98 -5 for the placement of fifteen (15) 6' high cellular antennas, construction of a 320 sq. ft. equipment building and the placement of a microwave dish antenna on a 6.1 acre hillside site. Adjacent to the equipment building will be a fenced service yard of approximately 77 sq. ft (6' X 12' -811) enclosing air conditioners and a dry well. The total building /service yard area is 397 sq. M:ICLafleuriMlAlRT000H CELLULAR1990602- AIRTOUCH -mdoc ATTACHMENT it F 11 000000 Honorable City Council May 26, 1999 Page 2 ft. Access to the site is provided by a paved private easement, which also provides access to three residences (one on subject property) in the area. The last (most easterly) approximately 60 ft of access roadway to the building site is an unpaved 8ft wide road leading to a turnaround /parking area for maintenance trucks. Following completion of construction, the applicant estimates that one trip to the site per month will be required. The 15 cellular antennas and the microwave dish will be placed on the hillside below the site of the building and turnaround. The lowest antenna location is approximately 110 feet above the elevation of Los Angeles Avenue, and the highest is 115 feet above Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed cellular antennas will be placed in three groups of five and have the general appearance of a rectangular panel. Each of these antennas (panels) is 13 inches wide and 4 ft. 4 inches in height with a depth or thickness of 12 inches. These panels will be mounted on a two inch diameter metal pole and will have a maximum height above ground level (to top of panel) of six (6) feet. The proposed microwave dish is 4 ft in diameter mounted on a separate pole with a maximum height (to top of dish) of six (6) feet. The antennas and support poles are proposed by the applicant to be painted to match the background of the site, which is a hillside. The Planning Commission adopted conditions require the painting of the equipment as well as the placement of landscaping behind the antennas and below the signal receiving area to blend the panels visually into the hillside. The proposed equipment building is 12'8" X 25'-4-, for a total area of 321 sq. ft., with a height of 12 ft and a flat roof. This structure, which was required to be constructed of split face block, tan in color with integral color mortar will be located at the top of the hill behind the crest of the slope and will be partially dug into the hillside. Additionally, landscaping is proposed in front of this structure which when combined with the building coloration; flat roof and placement into the slope should minimize the visibility factor. The subject property is designated by the General Plan and zoned for single family residences (RE Zone, Rural Exclusive). Section 17.20.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, allows communication facilities in a Rural Exclusive Zone with a Planning Commission Conditional 000OG7 Honorable City Council May 26, 1999 Page 3 Use Permit. The Planning Commission at their hearing received testimony from a neighboring property owner relating to concerns over the loss of property value because of the dangers presented by the antenna installation, which are located approximately 430 ft. from the nearest off -site residential structure. The planning Commission concluded that the proposal was consistent with efforts to minimize visual intrusion in the area, that there was no impact on Los Angeles Ave. and that there was no documented health danger because of proximity to off -site residences. The Federal Telecommun jurisdictions in their Facilities such as towers community wide basis but damage to a neighborhood are distinctions between specific location, such contrasted to facilities This proposal is to esta . service network to receiv Based upon previous al establish a service netwc would appear that altern< cations Act of 1y y6 limits local control of communications facilities. and antennas may not be prohibited on a may be reasonably controlled to avoid ncluding potential visual impacts. There facilities that receive a signal at a as a TV dish serving a residence as :hat establish a communications network. dish an installation that is part of a and send signals in a service corridor. plications for cellular antennas to -k processed by the City of Moorpark, it tive locations are available. There are currently three competing cellular proviaers, racizic bell kk_:urye- 1), AT &T (CUP95 -1), and Cox Communications (CUP 97 -5), located at the Ventura County Water District reservoir site north of Highway 23, east of Moorpark College. The reservoir site may offer an opportunity for the Air Touch facilities, while minimizing impacts to the community. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment. It has been found that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff as deemed appropriate. 0000GS Honorable City Council May 26, 1999 Page 4 Attachments: A. Planning Commission Agenda Report of 4 -12 -99 Staff Report Draft Resolution Exhibit 1 Site Plan, Exhibit 2 Access to Site, Exhibit 3 Zoning Map, Exhibit 4 General Plan Map, Exhibit 5 Photos of Site, Exhibit 6 B. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -99 -367 C. Color photos and full size exhibits (same as exhibits in PC Report of 4- 12 -99) Council only 000OG!j City of Moorpark Community Development Department Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 12, 1999 AGENDA ITEM NO.: ITEM -� A � ,- 'AOWAK CALWORNIA f ��- g O kq` LL CUP 98 -5 REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIFTEEN CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND A 320 SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT BUILDING AT 13931 E. LOS ANGELES AVENUE. APN 512 -0 -160 -300 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT AIR TOUCH CELLULAR, OWNER: VICTORIA CHAIDEZ REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for approval of a cellular communication facility consisting of 15 cellular communication antennas, each 6' in height and a 320 square foot equipment building at 13931 East Los Angeles Avenue. Planning Commission action on this application will be final unless appealed to the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) as a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. LOCATION: North side of Los Angeles Avenue, approximately 2,200' east of Spring Road and 500' west of the Highway 23/118 overpass. The subject Assessor Parcel Number is 512 -0 -160 -300. K L'l.VP1P1L+'1V LLi11V1V rDurwdiml; 1- .PPLVVd1 W1111 1.:V11U11.1 V115. oOVV t� Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ACTIONS A single family home currently occupies the subject site. No other permits have been issued for any other use on the site. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, ZONING DESIGNATION AND EXISTING USES ON SITE AND ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Direction Zonina General Plan Land Use Site RE -lac RH (Rural High) Single family home North RE -5ac SP -2 (Specific Undeveloped. Proposed Plan No. 2) Morrison - Fountainwood Specific Plan West RE -lac SP -2 Undeveloped, access driveway to site, proposed access to SP -2 site South M -2 (Limited I -2 (Medium Los Angeles Avenue Industrial) Industrial) National Ready Mix East RE -lac RH Undeveloped (Crawford Canyon) RE zoning is Rural Exclusive with a five acre minimum lot size. The RE zone allows for the installation of a cellular communications facility upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Note: this site is not within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency, nor is it within the Downtown Specific Plan area. APPLICATION COMPLETENESS/ PROCESSING EXPIRATION DATE On March 19, 1999, the Community Development Department deemed this application to be complete. To comply with the requirements for the processing of this application, the Planning Commission must make an environmental determination regarding the project by April 19, 1999, and act on the project by September 12, 1999. CUP98 -S.SR 00061,111 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 17.20.050 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, communications facilities are allowed in a Rural Exclusive zone with a Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is a permit based on a discretionary decision required prior to initiation of particular uses which may impact the community or need review for compatibility issues. Such permits are subject to site plan review and may be denied, approved or approved with conditions to insure compatibility in the neighborhood. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Conditional Use Permits may only be granted if all of the standards found in Section 17.44 are met, or if such conditions and limitations, including time limits, as the decision - making authority deems necessary, are imposed to allow the standards to be met. The applicant has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the appropriate decision - making authority that the proposed development meets the Findings specified in the attached Resolution. Section 17.24.080 of the Zoning Ordinance permits ground mounted antennas to a height of 751. The design of the antenna must comply with Section 17.28.020A which requires antennas to be designed to reduce visual impacts. Staff suggests adoption of a condition requiring that the antennas be blended with landscaping including trees planted behind each antenna (Condition 25) . SIZE OF PROPERTY The subject property is approximately 6.1 acres in size. However, the fifteen (15) antennas and the 320 sq.ft. equipment building will occupy only a small portion of the site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located on a hilltop parcel that overlooks Los Angeles Avenue. The crest of the hill has an elevation of 6751, which is approximately 105' higher than Los Angeles Avenue. Access to the site is provided by an asphalt driveway, 25' in width which CUP98 -5.SR 000072 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 4 serves the home at 13931 E. Los Angeles Avenue as well as two other homes. The site will be located at the end of an existing 8' wide dirt access road which connects to the main driveway and terminates at the proposed location of equipment building. A 60' diameter dirt turnaround is proposed at this location to enable service vehicles to exit the site. The existing trees will not be disturbed by construction of the proposed improvements. A condition of approval has been recommended requiring replacement of any trees removed or damaged as a result of the placement of the antennas or equipment building. A number of power poles and lines run parallel to Los Angeles Avenue and provide service to the site. The height of the power poles exceeds the height of the proposed antennas. The proposed facility includes 15 antennas placed in three groups of five. Five antennas will face the east - southeast, five will face the south, and five antennas will face the southwest (Exhibit 2). ANALYSIS Facility Specifications The applicant has provided information regarding the project, which is summarized below. More detailed information is on file in the Planning Department. Antennas and Support Structures The 15 antennas will be mounted in three groups of five. Each antenna is 4'4" in height, 13" in width and 1' in depth and is mounted on a 2" diameter metal pole with an overall maximum structure height of 6' feet (Exhibit 2). Due to the limited height and bulk of these antennas, camouflaging to resemble vegetation is unnecessary. A separate 3'6" diameter microwave dish will be located on top of a separate mounting pole (6' height for the dish and pole) between the two groups of five antennas which face the south and southwest. The antennas and support poles are proposed by the applicant to be painted to `match the background." On this site, a forest green color will blend with the trees which will be located immediately CUP98 -S.SR 000073 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 5 behind the antennas. The visibility of the antennas from the surrounding areas is analyzed below: North: The antennas will be not be visible from the north due to the intervening house, and the antennas being located below the crest of the hill. East: The intervening hill (Crawford Canyon) and freeway overpass proved partial screening from the east. The only properties to the east which have visibility to the site are industrial in nature. West: Only one house to the west has visibility to the site (901 E. Los Angeles Ave.), which is served by the same access driveway as the subject site. South: The antennas will be visible from the south from the industrial parcels on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. The nearest residential property to the the south is the Woodcreek Apartments, approximately 2,700' distant, however, their view of this site is blocked by the intervening industrial buildings. The antennas will not be readily visible to vehicles on Los Angeles Avenue due to their location approximately 85' above the height of the street level and the proposed landscape screening. Equipment Building Applicant proposes construction of a 12'8" x 25'4" (321 sq.ft.) building to contain the equipment to operate the facility, consisting of: Base Transreceiver Station (BTS) containing the electronic equipment for the antennas, a monitoring and alarm system, primary electrical power, backup batteries, auxiliary equipment and a combined GPS antenna /test mobile antenna /loran antenna. The building is proposed to be 12' in height and one side of the building will contain a 6' x 12'8" service yard enclosing the air conditioners and a dry well. The roof of the building is flat, minimizing the buildings visibility. The resulting footprint of the building and outdoor storage area totals 397 sq.ft. The building is proposed to be constructed of split face masonry blocks painted tan to blend in with the ground. Staff recommends approval CUP98 -5.SR 0000'74 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 6 of a condition requiring that the blocks and mortar have an integral tan color to eliminate the need for repainting. The visibility of the building will be minimized due to the location at the top of the hill behind the crest of the slope, required landscaping in front of the building and the integration of the building into the hillside. Landscaping of the Antenna Site The hill is covered with native shrubs and cactus with a large number of trees lining the main access driveway. These trees provide partial screening of the antennas when viewed from the south. Applicant has proposed the installation of landscaping surrounding each antenna location to provide screening and security. The applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan that will include but not be limited to plant materials that will screen the antennas and equipment building. The use of trees which are a compatible species with those existing on the site, and attaining a height sufficient to screen the antennas is suggested. The landscape plan must contain landscaping behind the antennas and in front of the equipment building of a sufficient height to provide adequate screening. Parking Because the proposed use will generate a minimal amount of traffic (to check the facility) and an adequate turnaround area is provided, no developed parking facilities are necessary. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES The surrounding zoning and uses are primarily open space and low density residential. The proposed use is located in an area that is not likely to impact any of the adjacent open space uses. However, minimizing its visual impacts should be an important consideration. The proposed antennas can be considered as, a compatible use under the appropriate circumstances. Although there are a large number of trees adjacent to the entrance driveway, the proposed antenna location is visually prominent from several directions and minimizing visibility of the antennas is an important consideration. Additional landscape screening is CUP98 -5.SR ft 0000'75 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 7 suggested. The placement of communications antennas at this site should be permitted only if visual impacts are minimized, which should be the result based -upon the 6' height of the antennas in this application. Based upon the locations selected in this proposal, its visibility and existing vegetation, these antennas with additional landscaping can blend in with the site's vegetation would seem to be an appropriate method to minimize its visual impact. This can be accomplished through a proposed condition requiring that one or more trees be planted behind each antenna. IMPAIRMENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY The proposed cellular antenna site is a passive use of a portion of the unused hillside in front of the existing single family home. It is not expected that the cellular antenna facility operation will disturb the surrounding area. Also, the proposed facility is not located near neighboring properties so as to affect other uses, however, there is a visibility issue which must be resolved. The use is not expected to be harmful or detrimental to neighboring properties or uses. These reduced size antennas can be placed to visually blend with the vegetation and topography in the area based upon the applicant's proposal and the visual simulation (see attached Exhibit 6). HEALTH AND WELFARE The project will not have an adverse effect on the health and welfare of either human, plant, or animal life. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment. It has been found that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. RECOMMENDATION 1. open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. CUP98 -5.SR 0000"t,16 Planning Commission Staff Report CUP 98 -5, Air Touch Cellular April 12, 1999 Page 8 2. Make the Appropriate Findings which are specified in the attached Resolution. 3. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -5 subject to the conditions contained therein. P.XNTRTTG 1. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan Exhibits 3. Access to Site 4. Zoning Map 5. General Plan Map 6. Photos of Site CUP98 -5.SR 0000 "17 RESOLUTION NO. PC -99 -367 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98 -5 ON THE APPLICATION OF AIR TOUCH CELLULAR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIFTEEN COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS, EACH SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, LOCATED AT 13931 E. LOS ANGELES AVENUE ON PROPERTY OWNED BY VICTORIA CHAIDEZ IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 512 -0 -160 -300) Whereas, on November 16, 1998, the applicant applied for Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -5 for construction of 15 communication antennas with a maximum height of 6', located at 13931 E. Los Angeles Ave. 6.1 acre site owned by Victoria Chaidez; and Whereas, authority for the approval of Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a communication facility is granted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.20.050 of the Moorpark Municipal Code; and Whereas, at its meeting of April 12, 1999 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application filed by Air Touch Cellular, requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -5; and Whereas, at its public hearing of April 12, 1999, the Planning Commission, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report dated April 12, 1999, and accepting public testimony, closed the public hearing; and Whereas, the Planning Commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the Staff Report dated April 12, 1999, and public testimony has reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the information and findings presented in this Resolution, accompanying documents and public testimony, the Planning Commission finds that: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the character of surrounding development. 111/ z!1 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 2 3. The proposed use would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses. 4. The proposed uses would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. 5. The proposed use is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the general area where the development is to be located. 6. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties and is designed to enhance the physical and visual quality of the community and that the antenna structure because of its limited size is not visually impacting and when combined with landscaping provides visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303, Class 3, for construction of small structures and there is no anticipated significant impacts on the environment. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -5, subject to the following Conditions: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS - Permitted Uses 1. The permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations. The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. Other Regulations 2. The development is subject to all applicable regulations of the Rural Exclusive zone, and all requirements and enactments of Federal, State, Ventura County, the City authorities and any other governmental entities, and all such requirements and TIMOR— PRI— SERVIHOME— FOLDERSICLaBeurlWC -resosl99resos199 -367 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR.doc 000079 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 3 enactments shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. Discontinuance of Use 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -5 shall expire when the use for which it is granted is abandoned or discontinued for a period of 180 or more consecutive days. Use Inauguration 4. That unless the project is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place or substantial work in progress) not later than one (1) year after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Director of Community Development may, at his discretion, grant up to one (1) additional year extension for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if applicant can document that the applicant has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial two year period. The request for extension of this entitlement shall be made in writing, at least 30 -days prior to the expiration date of the permit. Prohibited Uses 5. All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification has been approved by the City of Moorpark. Any minor changes to this permit shall require the submittal of an application for a Modification to this permit. Other Regulations 6. No conditions of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. In instances where more than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence. IUNOR PRI—SER W- TOME_ FOLDERSICLafleuAWC- resos199resos199 -367 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR. doc 00006( Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 4 Severability 7. If any of the conditions held to be invalid, that the remaining conditions Permittee Defense Costs or limitations of this permit are holding shall not invalidate any of or limitations set forth. 8. The permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit or in the alternative to relinquish this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result-of any such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve permittee of his obligation under this condition. Zoning Clearance prior to Building Permit 9. Prior to approval of construction plans for plan check or initiation of any construction activity, a Zoning Clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development. If a applicant desires, construction plans may be submitted to the Building and Safety Department prior to approval of this Development Permit with a City approved Hold Harmless Agreement. Other Uses on Site 10. If in the future, any use or uses are contemplated on the site differing from that specified in the zoning clearance approved for the occupancy, either the permittee, owner, or each prospective tenant shall file a project description prior to the initiation of the use. A review by the Director of Community Development will be conducted to determine if the proposed use is compatible with the Open Space Zone and the terms and conditions of this permit. Said review will be conducted at no charge and an approval letter sent, unless a minor or major modification to the Planned Development is IIMOR_PRI SERVViOME FOLDERSICLaBeuAMVr- resos199resosl99- 367AIRTOUCHCELLULAR.doc 000061 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 5 required, in which case all applicable fees and procedures shall apply. Acceptance of Conditions 11. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the permittee shall sign a statement indicating awareness and understanding of all permit conditions, and shall agree to abide by these Conditions. On -site Improvements 12. No Zoning Clearance may be issued for construction until all on -site improvements specified in this permit have been provided or the Director of Community Development approves the acceptance of a Performance Bond to guarantee the construction and maintenance of exterior improvements including, but not limited to fences, slope planting or other landscape improvements not related to grading, etc. Said on -site improvements shall be completed within 120 days of issuance of a Zoning Clearance. In case of failure to comply with any term or provision of this condition, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the City, the City Council may reduce the amount of the bond; however, the bond must be kept in full effect for one year after the last occupancy to guarantee that items such as landscaping; fences; slope planting or other landscape improvements not related to grading; etc. are maintained. Employment or Disposal of Hazardous Materials 13. Prior to any occupancy by any tenant or subsequent owner whose business would employ or dispose of hazardous materials, a Major Modification application shall be filed with the Department of Community Development and approved by the City. Changes of Ownership 14. No later than ten (10) days after any change of property ownership or change of lessee(s) or operator(s) of the subject building, there shall be filed with the Director of Community IIMOR— PRI— SERMOME FOLDERS1CLaHeuNArr- resos199resos199- 367AIRTOUCHCELLULAR.doc 0 0 0 V S 2 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 6 Development the name(s) and address(es) of the new owner(s), lessee(s) or operator(s) together with a letter from any such person(s) acknowledging and agreeing with all conditions of this permit. Continued Maintenance 1.5. The continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities, including landscaping, shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. The permittee shall be required to remedy any defects in maintenance, as indicated by the Code Enforcement officer within thirty (30) days after notification. Graffiti Removal 16. The applicant and his successors, heirs, and assigns shall remove any graffiti within five (5) days from written notification by the City of Moorpark. All such graffiti removal shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. FEES Case Processing Costs 17. The applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering departments), and all City legal service fees prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. The applicant, permittee, or successors in interest, shall also submit to the Department of Community Development a fee to cover costs incurred by the City for Condition Compliance review of the Conditional Use Permit. Zoning Enforcement Costs 18. The Director of Community Development may declare a development project that is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause, a "public nuisance ". The applicant shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with the Conditions of Approval or applicable codes. If the applicant IwoRipRI— SERmomO _ FOLDERSICLafleurlWC- resosl99resos199- 367AIRTOUCHCELLULAR.doc 000obti Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 7 fails to pay all city costs related to this action, the City may enact special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed (Municipal Code Section 1.12.080). Lighting 19. All proposed lighting shall meet the requirements of Section 17.24.090.F of the Municipal Code in that no light source shall be visible from an adjacent property, fixtures must provide sharp cut -off qualitites, and upward light spillage shall be eliminated. All lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of the Zone Clearance and the lighting shall be reviewed to compliance with the requirements prior to the initiation of use of the facility. Building Materials and Colors 20. Antennas shall be painted a dark green color to match the landscape screening. All exterior building materials and paint colors shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The proposed structure shall be constructed of split face blocks with an integral earth tone color and using integral color mortar, all colors shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of the Zoning Clearance. Condition Compliance Costs 21. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a Condition Compliance review fee in the amount of the original filing fee for the project. Noise Generation Sources 22. All equipment and other noise generation sources on -site shall be attenuated to 55 dBA at the property line. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent occupancy, the Director of Community Development may request that a noise study be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all on -site noise generation TIMOR— PRI— SERVIHOME FOLDERSICLafleuAmir— resosl99resosl99- 367AIRr0UCHCELLULAR.doc Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 8 sources would be mitigated to the required level. The noise study must be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer in accordance with accepted engineering standards. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Review of Uses 23. Prior to occupancy, Ventura County APCD Air Pollution Control District (APCD) shall review all uses to ensure compliance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 65850.5 et seq.) regarding the use, storage and disposition of hazardous materials. Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld until compliance with these provisions from the Ventura County APCD is provided. Building Security Specifications Requirements 24. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building and Safety Department shall insure that the construction plans incorporate the requirements of the Building Security Specifications of the Moorpark Police Department. Landscape Plan Submittal 25. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a complete landscape plan (3 sets), together with specifications and a maintenance program shall be prepared by a State Licensed Landscape Architect, generally in accordance with the City of Moorpark Guide to Landscape Plans, and shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. A. Trees shall be planted of a species that will reach a minimum of 15' in height at maturity, planted at the rear of each antenna and in front of the equiprment building (the south side) An adequate number of shrubs must be planted to screen the chain link fence. Shrubs and /or ground cover shall be planted in the front of each antenna. B. The landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation specifications for the leased area and all slopes where antennas are proposed. IIMOiI PRI— SERWiOME_ FOLDERSICLafleurWC, resos199rescs199- 367A1RTOUCHCELLULAR.doc 000085 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 9 C. The purpose of the landscaping shall be to control erosion, prevent aesthetic impacts to adjacent property owners and mitigate the visual impacts of the cellular antennas. D. The applicant shall bear the cost of the landscape plan review, installation of the landscaping and irrigation system, and of final landscape inspection. E. The landscaping shall be in place and receive final inspection prior to the initiation of use. F. Irrigation shall be provided for all permanent landscaping identified in the approved landscape plan. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the irrigation system and all landscaping. G. All new or replacement plant materials and erosion control landscaping shall be installed and receive final inspection prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy. H. A tree shall be planted behind each antenna to achieve a blending of the antenna with the landscape materials. Each tree shall have a foliage level sufficiently low and wide enough to insure that all portions of the antennas have their visibility reduced by the proposed landscape materials. CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: General: 26. The Developer shall demonstrate legal access to the parcel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Storm Water Runoff and Flood Control Planning: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) IUAOR PRI_SERVWOME FOLDERSICLafleurl MWC- resosl99resosW9- 367AIR70UCHCELLULAR.doc 000066 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 10 27. The applicant /owner shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), on the form provided by the City for the review and approval of the City Engineer. A. The SWPCP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. B. The SWPCP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to stormwater and shall include the design and placement of recommended. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. C. Improvement plans shall note that the contractor shall comply to the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks" D. The Developer shall also comply with NPDES objectives as outlined in the "Stormwater Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites ". This handout is available at the City Engineer's office and a copy will be attached to the approved grading permit. E. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. F. The project construction plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to the development for the review and approval of the City Engineer. G. Drainage to adjacent parcels shall not be increased or concentrated by this project. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate storm water flows shall be provided by the Developer. IIMOR'PRI—SERMOME FOLDERSICLafleurUPC- resos199resos 199- 367 AIRTOUCHCELLULAR.doc OOOU ST Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 11 H. Measures shall be taken such that concentrated surface flows on -site are interrupted, dissipated, or contained to prevent erosion. OTHER: The Developer shall indicate in writing to the City the disposition of any wells that may exist within the project. If any wells are proposed to be abandoned, or if they are abandoned and have not been properly sealed, they must be destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per Division of Oil and Gas requirements. Permits for any well reuse (if applicable) shall conform with Reuse Permit procedures administered by the County Water Resources Development Department. 28. The applicant shall comply with all pertinent County of Ventura Public Works Department water and sewer connection regulations, should any connections be required. These measures shall be implemented by the County of Ventura Public Works Department (Waterworks District No. 1) 29. In accordance with Business and Professions Code 8771 the street improvement plans shall, provide for a surveyors statement on the plans, certifying that all recorded monuments in the construction area have been located and tied out or will be protected in place during construction. 30. Any right -of -way acquisition necessary to complete the required improvements will be acquired by the Developer at his expense. DURING GRADING, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 31. Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th subject to installation of erosion control facilities. Erosion control measures shall be in place and functional between October 15th and April 15th. 32. Construction activities shall be limited to between the following hours: a) 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and b) 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction work on Saturdays will require payment of a premium for City inspection services, and may be further restricted or IIMOR_RRl SERMOME- FOLDERSICLafleurlWC- resosl99resosl99 .367AIRT000HCELLULAR.doc 000066 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 12 prohibited should the City receive complaints from adjacent property owners. No construction work is to be done on Sundays, pursuant to Section 15.26.010 of the Municipal Code. 33. Prior to any work being conducted within the State, County, or City right of way, the Developer shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate Agencies. 34. During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. 35. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation operations, dust shall be controlled by regular watering. In addition the following measures shall apply: 36. Water all site access roads and material excavated or graded on or off -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur a minimum of at least two times daily, preferably in the late morning and after the completion of work for the day. Additional watering for dust control shall occur as directed by the City. The grading plan shall indicate the number of water trucks that will be available for dust control at each phase of grading. IIMOR- PRI-SERVIHOME FOLDERSICLafleuAM 'r— resosl99resos199 -367 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR. doc ©0006b Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 13 37. Cease all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) . The contractor shall maintain contact with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds. 38. Water or securely cover all material transported off -site and on -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 39. Keep all grading and construction equipment on or near the site, until these activities are completed. 40. Facemasks shall be used by all employees involved in grading or excavation operations during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust that may contain the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever. 41. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive dust generation. 42. Wash off heavy -duty construction vehicles before they leave the site. 43. Truck noise from hauling operations shall be minimized through established haul routes which avoid residential areas and requiring that "lakes Brakes" not be used along the haul route within the City. The hauling plan must be identified as part of the grading plan and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 44. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City Construction Observer shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. TIMOR— PRI—SERINiOME FOLDERS1CLafleueMPC- resos199resos199- 367AIRTOUCH CELLULAR. doc 000060 Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 14 45. Backfill of any pipe or conduit shall be in 4 inch fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 46. Soil testing for trench compaction is to be performed on all trenches for pipe or conduit placement. The interval of testing shall be less than once every 4 feet of lift and 100 lineal feet of trench excavated. 47. Observe a 15 mile per hour speed limit for the construction area. 48. All diesel engines used in construction equipment shall use reformulated diesel fuel. 49. The Developer shall ensure that construction equipment is fitted with modern sound- reduction equipment. 50. Equipment not in use for more than ten minutes shall be turned off. 51. The Developer shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6 -foot high chain link fence around the construction sites or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. 52. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as set forth in manufacturers specifications. 53. During site preparation and construction, construct temporary storm water diversion structures per City of Moorpark standards. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 54. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all structures shall be designed to current UBC requirements or the City approved geotechnical report requirements for the project, whichever standard is most restrictive. IIMOR— BRLSERVIHOME FOLDERSICLaBeufiWC- resas199resos199- 367AIRTOUCHCELLULAR.doc 0000bl Resolution No. PC 99 -367 Conditional Use Permit No. CUP -98 -5 Air Touch Cellular Page 15 The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Landis, Parvin, DiCecco, Haller, Otto NOES: ABSTAIN: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 12 DAY OF APRIL 1999. Mark DiCecco, Chairman ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission 11MOR�PR1— SERVIHOME FOLDERSICLafleurlMlPC- resosl99resosl99- 367A1RTOUCH CELLULAR, doc 000052 w � RECEIVED JUN 2 4 1999 City of MOO Community pave opmeni lvb� s&� s� ATTACHMENT it & 11 &, 51e"cz- �� 386 s5: �y Y3oct�6 �O So t3 oorpark's senior center to expand By Paul O'Donoghue Daily News Staff Writer MOORPARK — The city's senior center will be expanded and improved with better access for people with disabilities following City Council approval of a long - awaited $494,000 plan. Councilman Chris Evans said he was excited about the new project at the center, but expressed frus- tration that it has taken so long to get going. "I find the whole process extremely frustrating," Evans said about the project that has been under way for several years. The expansion plans approved 4-0 by the council Wednesday include adding a 1,602- square -foot multipurpose room, possibly cre- ating an additional 863 - square -foot room by enclosing the breezeway in front of the senior center.and the Citrus Room, and making modifications for people with disabilities. The. center, which is part of the Civic Center complex downtown, provides a range of services from exercise classes to book clubs and is no longer large enough to.accom- modate all the seniors wanting to use it, officials said. The council voted 4-O to seek bids for the project but voted to allocate only $383,000 for the work. The $111,000 difference would go toward enclosing ,the breezeway if the city deci pursue that Communities project, which c� aspect of the proje : for 303 single - family homes on The bulk of the prod e funded by state and Feder ch'� QazQ= a•. officials said. ■ Postponed until July 21 Mary Lindley, director of Com- glecision on a request by AirTot munity Services, said t Cellular to build antennas and seek bids for the projec a equipment building on East month, and constructi ill ely Angeles Avenue. begin about a mo ft t t. `r `ed `__ --` -n a the 39 bi Constructi ould take about nP c rPg r r; F ' four mon o complete, she said. vendors who were set to particit In o r action, the council: in the canceled swap meet ■ Approved plans for the Pacific Moorpark College. 1 6 10 000054 Jl.in. 2 '99 16:39 COLDWELL BANKER T.WHITE FAX 3104765767 n /,W, A P. ITEM q • E • ATTACHMENT " N ff 000ob5 JUN 02 '99 17:09 3104765767 PAGE.01 JL, n. 2 '99 16:39 COLDI,.IELL BANKER T. UJH I TE FAX 3104765767 P. 2 June 1, 1999 To Moorpark City Council: I am the owner of 13851 E. Los Angeles Avenue and I oppose the installation of 15 cellular antennas to be installed on our neighbor's property located at 13931 E. Los Angeles Avenue. After speaking with several real estate agents, bank loan appraisers and property inspectors, I have been told that the installation of these cellular antennas in a residential neighborhood, will cause significant financial loss to my property value and will be considered a negative influence to the overall well being of the immediate area. I have enclosed several written statements for your review. Whether these antennas' are a health issue over a long period of time, is yet to be seen. But more importantly, the public perception is that there is a possible health risk and will be considered to be a negative issue when purchasing. I believe that AT & T Cellu].ar can find a more suitable site (not in a "single family residence" neighborhood), that will not cause anyone financial hardship or possible health risks. However, should this project be approved by the City Council, I feel AT & T Cellular should be responsible to repave and maintain the entire road. Sincerely, Ronald K. White Enclosures 00005(; JUN 02 199 17:09 3104765767 PAGE.02 Jun. 2 '99 16:39 COLDWELL BANKER T.WHITE FAX 3104 ?65767 P. 3 JUN 01 '99 15:4ri FR COLDWELL BANK WESTLAKS05 778 0911 TO ,j104 ?65741 P.01i01 650 WESTLAKE BLVD mo WESTLAKE VILLAGE. CA 91362 BUS. (805) 496.3261 FAX(805)499.6826 RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE June 1, 1999 Ron and Carol White 13851 E. Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. And Mrs. White; In reference to our discussion on the possibility of cellular satellite receivers being installed on the property adjacent to yours, it is important to consider the perception of future potential purchasers of your acreage. A good percentage of the population still considers any transmitting or receiving devices a health hazard. Although meuiy articles have been published on this subject, there continues to be an adverse effect on the sale and markenbility of areas involved. Since ly, J Phill Dunn Assistant Manages Coldwell Banker Independently Owned Ant Operated By NRT Incotporated, 0000 t ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** JUN 02 '99 17:10 3104765767 PAGE.03 Jun. 2 '99 16:40 COLDWELL BANKER T.WHITE FAX 3104765767 P. 4 13un -02 -94 12:12P TQWER CAPITAL 31L 312 -4£318 P.01 FROM LALIKYAN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. i 818 988 1978 Jun. 01 1999 07:11PM P1 %1 REAL ESTATE. APPRAISING COMPANY 8706 MURIr`T-TA AVENUE • VAN Nuy$, CA 91405 TEL: (81 t3) 9Be -1 ,978 - PGR: (818) 542-CD030 ADDENDUM 06/01/99 13851 E, Los Angeles Ave, MooTpa k-, CA 93021 To whom It may Concern: After preliminary review of subject neighborhood, the appraiser has determined installing of 151�dis�hoes in adjacent property would adversely affect subject property, .JUN 1 '53 18:00 JUN 02 '99 17:10 000058 ele 996 19719 PPr3E.0m 3104765767 PA6E.04 Jun. 2 '99 16:41 COLDWELL BANKER T.WHITE Jun -01 -99 06:17P TOWER CAPITAL FAX 3104765767 310- 312 -4818 Wiliam R. Menntr S. C. R. E. A. 1416 Amherst Ave. Ste. 4 Los Angeles, Ca, 90025 Phone (3 10) 826 -0023 P. 5 To whom it may conearnl at 1 851 .Los Angt:les Ava Moor Park, Ca. Regarding tho.PtOPenY raisot the developtnam of a In my plrofes ' n 'pion, as a real estate $Pp sits, would probably ' with 15 ���i�� �hlS, c�onti�us in 4 �csidensial site adversely effwt the of the residential side. William Mennen, AG 005653 J P.01 0000b5 JUN 02 '99 17:11 3104765767 PAGE.05 May 30, 1999 ITEM-C). F. - R-EC 7- Mayor Patrick Hunter City Council Member John Wozniak City Council Member Debbie Rogers City Council Member Clint Harper CL '.' ", k'S Ore i�.0 City Council Member Chris Evans CITY Otw . MOORJ'Apt °l Re: Appeal No. 99 -1 (CUP Airtouch Cellular 98 -5) (We are unable to attend the public hearing, can you please note our concerns and enter this testimony into the record.) Since the initial Planning Commission hearing that was held regarding the Cellular phone/Microwave antenna site, we have had the opportunity to do further research into the health hazards of such a site. After doing this research, we need to state that we have some serious concerns regarding the cellular /microwave site being located adjacent to our property for the following reasons: Please review the attached document and you will see there are many potential health hazards. Maintenance of the site and the landscaping will necessitate truck usage of the existing road easement. This blacktop driveway is already crumbling and is inadequate for such usage. We are within approximately 300 feet from the site and will look directly eye level at the antennas. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Cliff May 13853 E. Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RECEIVED JUN 0 11999 City of Moorpark Community Development Department OOO.(vO ATTACHMENT " Z lar Towels, EMR, and Health Effects bttp://-4vw-,v.%vNvnet.net/—babbles] Cellular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects You are visitor number since April 8, 1996 These pages were last updated July 22, 1997. My name is Julie Fournier. I am the mother of two grade school -aged children, and of one future grade schooler. I recently became involved in a campaign to prevent my local school board from allowing a cellular tower to be located at my children's grade school, Lincoln Elementary. During the course of this campaign, I conducted some fairly extensive research into available materials on cellular tower emissions, electromagnetic radiation (EMR), and linked physical effects of exposure. I have assembled much of this information here, in the hopes that others faced with a similar situation may find some of it useful. Many of the documents here are publicly available from their sources, like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I have tried to be as clear as possible when the input comes from me and not from the original documents. I would like to thank Cathy Bergman- Venezia of the EMR alliance for her invaluable help to me in successfully fighting Lincoln's proposed tower, and for supplying me with most of the information on this page. • Our experience at Lincoln Elementary • Other protests against cellular towers • FCC documents relating to cellular technology • "Cell Tower Static," an article by Cathy Bergman- Venezia of the EMR Alliance • A science and tech brief from the Michigan State Legislature on the subject • Quotes and results from scientific studies related to cellular technology and health concerns • Some suggestions for how to oppose construction of cellular towers in your community • Links to related resources on the Web General Information on Cellular Tower Emissions From Network News, Summer 1997 0001©1 I 5130/99 6:57 PM Nular Tow. -is, EMR, and Health Effects littp://NN,%,,-w.iv%-,-net.net/-babbles Radiation is a natural part of the universe. We are bathed in a constant stream of electromagnetic radiation produced by the power of sun's solar winds, which give off hig:i- energy ionizing radiation like x -rays, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma and cosmic rays, and some radio /microwave frequencies too. These interact in a complex way with the magnetosphere, which protects the earth from this barrage otherwise we wouldn't exist on this planet; as well as the ionosphere and the atmosphere closer ro the earth. The earth itself is a giant dipole magnet (like those little bar magnets we all played with as kids) containing a north and a south pole. Micropulsations in the 10 -hertz frequency range constantly emanate from the earth's core. Scientists used to think these micropulsations were an interesting but meaningless phenomenon. Today they think all living things are in a complex relationship with it; entrained by it in fact. Entrainment phenomenon can be thought of as what occurs when a mother and child sleep togeter and their breathing rates synchronize. Energy is what we respond to, like plants to light. Every living thing is in harmony with these subtle signals. It's been found to control our most basic circadian biorhythms, our sleeping/waking cycles, important hormone production such as melatonin, and some crucial aspects of cell division itself. Human brain waves, in fact, function mostly around the 10 Hz frequency, just like these micropulsations. Other species also rely on this natural magnetic background. It is known to determine bird and butterfly migration patterms for example, among many other things. Not all energy, which is expressed in wavelengths and frequencies, is alike. Nor is its properties, or effects. The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into ionizing and non - ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation, like x -rays, is powerful enough to knock electrons off of their cellular orbits and therefore cause genetic mutations. The non - ionizing bands, like the microwave and radio frequencies, aren't powerful enough to do that, but can cause a range of other reactions such as tissue heating, like what occurs in microwave oven. The dividing line between ionizing and non - ionizing radiation is in the visible light range, around the ultraviolet band, but no one can say precisely where one leaves off and the other begins. This is a concern for consumer products like color TV's and computer monitors which are multi- frequency products. A TV plugs into the wall at the extremely low frequency power line range of 60 Hertz, and utilizes energy all the way up through the light frequencies. At the top end of the range, x -rays and UV particles are being given off. That's why it's a good idea to sit at least six feet from such screens. It has been known for years that the human anatomy is actually resonant (Resonance is what happens when an opera singer hits high C in the presence of a crystal glass for a sustained period and the glass dramatically shatters) -in the strict physics sense of the term - with the FM frequency bands, and that the brain reaches peak absorption in the UHF bands- right where cellular telecommunications operate. It has been observed that the most profound bioeffects occur at the lowest intensities, known by researchers as a "non- linear effect ". Some researchers think that a worse frequency could not have been chosen for the emerging technology regarding the human anatomy. The fact that weak electromagnetic fields (weak meaning non - ionizing and below heating or thermal levels) can cause changes in living things (what are called bioeffects) challenges a basic paradigm in science. This conventional paradigm holds that ionizing electromagnetic energy like gamma and X -rays can cause bioeffects by knocking apart atoms and molecules and non - ionizing energy can cause effects when its intensity is sufficient to cause heating. This automatically means that fields from things like power lines and cellular phones are safe as long as they don't heat you up, a guiding idea for present safety standards. Yet there is now a considerable body of evidence that weak fields can affect biological systems. Many scientists prefer to believe that such data is flawed because the theory says is just isn't so. The EMF issue also comes up agaist another powerful paridigm: that of the notion of progress, one of the F.....7.,...o..t.,l ..,..+1.....F:...i....�r:..l ,...1�,..o D..� ..F�h:....,..�t, ,.F..�,..,r.o..� :,.:r4. n..- :..o�� Tho ��......o ..F..�....w�..n f 21 OOOJL02 5/30/99 6:57 PM llular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects http:l/,,v,%,,-%,.-.,.,.-"met.net/—babb,:es' ILL! -. "U411t LIUMI LILY Lill Vl Ii1u UJLL tai I.UILIU G. L al V1 Lu1J ILLY III VL PI%JrIV33 lJ [LJ PL I" . 1 LK, lJIIVG V1 Pt V�51 GJJ is acknowledged as real,...and has been very high. (Anyone) who dared raise questions that needed addressing was dismissed as a Luddite, someone afraid of change and out of touch with reality. Too often the enthusiasm for things new has completely swamped the need for serious questions about their "price ". To date, neither the United States government nor the wireless communications industry have established a research agenda that addresses the non - thermal effects of exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation. Nor have any studies been completed within the US that are focused on this vital issue. Yet 45 million cell phones are in use today, over one- hundred thousand cell towers loom over our skylines in the US, thousands of additional wireless communication facilities are under construction and concerns of health effects including learning disabilties, cancer, leukemia, DNA-damage, blood disorders, brain tumors, electrical sensitivity and other serious adverse health disorders and disease are brushed aside in the name of progress. We are irrevocably altering the electromagnetic signature of the world and we are doing this with no clear understanding of the implications to humans and other species. Excerpted from "Cellular Towers Exposure Levels and Public Health by James B. Hatfield, P.E." published in 'EMF Health Report, Vol. 3, No. 2, March /April 1995.' "Cell -site antennas emit radiofrequency (RF) energy. (* from Thomas S. El s report, "the fields produced by cellular telephone antennas" are "microwaves" which "fall within the classification of nonionizing radiation ", - JKF) They are mounted on the tops of towers and therefore are at some distance from the general public. The radiated power from each antenna, 50 to 200 watts, is equivalent to the power of a typical household light bulb. The broadcast power levels used by cellular base stations are therefore much lower than the radiated power from commercial FM and television stations, which ranges from a few thousand fo five million watts (for UHF TV)." (Telecommunications representatives at public hearings and in the press routinely blur the distinctions between frequencies, likening their installations to 25 and 100 watt light bulbs in an attempt to confuse and placate concerned citizens. What they leave out is that their systems operate at ultra high frequencues (UHF) in the microwave bands,-which are maximally absorbed by human tissue. And they also don't specify that each channel is 100 watts. Channels can be split as user demand increases, and there can be hundreds of channels on some towers. This is no longer a low- powered transmitter suitable to sit on top of someone's barn silo, but rather something closer to the power output of a local AM radio station. -- Network News, Summer 1997) "Some of the antennas used at cell sites focus the RF energy in a fairly narrow range of specific directions while others transmit energy in all directions. Like the lens of a flashlight, the more directive, or "sectorized," antenna systems focus the energy into a more intense beam than the omni - directional antennas." ...the highest power densities occur at distances of 100 to 800 feet from the towers and are a little higher than 1 microwatt per square meter maximum. In the majority of locations the power densities are much less than 1 uW /cm squared. (typically 0.01 to 0.1 uW /cm squared). Much of the variation of the power density with distance ...is caused by the directional nature of the antennas, along with effects caused by the varying heights of the antennas.... Even though there are peaks in the power density, even the highest levels are approximately a hundred thousand times less than the limits established for human exposure to RF ENT. (It 021 0001035/30/99 6:57 PM !lular Tow-rs, EMR, and Health Effects http: //N— .— net.net/– babbles should be noted that these limits address only thermal effects, not a4hermanio- effects .... JKF) Aesthetics Cellular towers vary in height, they are usually 10 -150 feet tall (that's 15 stories), and some of them can be up to 300 feet. A tower can be ugly and unsightly, especially in areas unaccustomed to 'tall structures. They can destroy a scenic view. They can cause damage to a prostine wilderness area. The noise of a tower can also be unpleasant. Many towers need loud generators to power lights and monitoring devices. Local residents find the flashing lights and low level hum from the facility harms their neighborhood and peace of mind. -- Excerpted from a letter by Linda L. Harrison published in the summer 1995 issue of The EMR Alliance Network News: • "The FCC does not guarantee or advertise the 'extreme safety' of these towers as cellular companies do. • "The FCC does no regulatory check of frequency or power density readings at any cellular tower sites to enforce compliance to ANSI requirements. • "ANSI requirements are vased on a time averaged exposure and do not adddress continued low intensities of RF radiation such as that which invades the homes of people who live near a cellular facility. • "Although extensive studies have been initiated through WTR (wireless technologies research projects), NO conclusive evidence has been obtained. Thus, the health hazards which may result from these towers is clearly not known. • "The cellular industry has proposed new legislation to circumvent local authorities which would give them exclusive rights to any locality for their cell sites." Our experience at Lincoln Elementary We were recently successful in stopping our school district, in Royal Oak, MI, from renting out space at Lincoln Elementary School. The district was considering placing a 75 -foot tower on the grounds at Lincoln in exchange for an initial payment of less than $25,000, with a monthly rental of approximately $600. The plan called for placing the tower less than ten feet from the school building. The school board arranged for Cellular One representatives to answer questions at an informal meeting prior to the board considering the proposal; residents of the area who had no children in Lincoln were given no notice of any proceedings by the board. Our organization, with less than a month to organize, collected over 200 signatures opposing the tower, and alerted the local print and broadcast media. Before the school board could vote on the issue, at a standing- room -only meeting, Cellular One withdrew the proposal. Many other groins across the U.S. have had similar success in opposition to placement of these towers. At the informal meeting held by the school board, printed information was made available to the parents by C.f4hilar One In their "4afety RPnnrt on F1e.1CkS from C'ellnlsr TP1PnhnnP Race Ctatinn Antenna -," Thnmac 000104 21 5/30/99 6:57 PM imar Towers. EMR. and Health Effects http: /A1 w-w wwnet- net/ — babbles/ Ely, M.D. states "In the United-States, electric power is provided at a frequency of 60 hertz (60 Hz) -- 60 cycles per second. In recent years there have been studies published suggesting that there are detrimental effects of exposure to 60 Hz fields. Other studies do not confirm these findings. The issue is far from conclusive at this time." This is the same man who went before our school board and tried to tell us that there are hundreds of studies proving this technology is safe. When I asked him to name just one study he pulled out a study from 1967. At the same time, I keep hearing that this technology has only been around for 10 -15 years. Others across America who are concerned /opposed to cellular towers: California - A proposed 75 foot high cellular antenna was rejected by city planning commissioners who voiced doubts about the health and safety of the tower. (Sebastian Rejects Power Tower On Hill. Press Democrat, July 27, 1995.) Homeowners in Los Angeles have banned together to fight the tower wxpansion program of L.A. Cellular. (A Call Against Cellular Antennas. Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1995.) From Los Gatos to Sebastopol, local residents are fighting plans for cellular tower canstruction. (Communities Battle Cellular Tower, Antennas; A Not In My Backyard Phone Fight. San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 1995.) Connecticut - State Parent - Teacher Association Policy The Parent- Teacher Association of Connecticut (CT PTA) issued the following statement regarding a resolution passed at their convention in May 1994 seeking legislation on the issue of electromagnetic field safety: "That CT PTA seek and support legislation insuring that high tension wires, cellular and microwave towers must be two- hundred yards from any wxisting or new public school, child care facility of playing field until scientific evidence of the bioeffects of electromagnetic fields is conclusively determined to be safe, and, that where Misting wires, cellular and microwave towers need to be moved, the company or responsible agent be liable for the cost and not the local school district." According to the PTA statenebtm the above resolution was based on the EPA draft report concerning low -level EMT, and "a growing body of scientific evidence suggest(ing) that there may be a connetion between cancer and wxposure to electromagnetic fields from high current lines." The PTA maintains the resolution and has not issued any subsequent addendum or additional statements. Connecticut - Questions about the health and safety of cellular towers has sparked serious controversy in the state of Connecticut. (Residents Worry Over Health Risks of High Tech Sprouts. Connecticut Post, October 2, 1995) Illinois - Homeowners and local officials are mounting resistance to the unchecked proliferation of cellular 000105 21 5/30/99 6:57 PM 'Aular Towers. EMR. and Health Effects http://i-viN-Nv.wN,.-nct.net/—babbles, facilities. In March of 1994, Des Plains City Council killed Ameritech's plans to build a 104 foot tower after residents rallied against it. South barrington, Long Grove and Mount Prospect and unincorporated Naperville are other areas where proposed cell sites have either been thrown out or have created an uproar among local residents. In Elk Grove Village, city officials put a freeze on new cell towers while they work on a long term policy addressing the development of wireless networks. (Cellular Phone Use In Suburbs Becomes Love/Hate Relationship. Daily Herald, May 31, 1995.) Massachusetts - Cellular One, in the wake of protests from residents, has withdrawn its proposal to install a l0.foot antenna on the top of Farm Street water tower. (Cellular One Backs Down In Millis. The Boston Sunday Globe, September 25, 1994) Michigan - Citizen activists defeated Cellular One's proposal to build a transmitting facility across the street from senior citizen housing in Warren, and pass restrictions on them. Cellular One, in the wake of protests from residents, withdrew its proposal to build a 75 foot transmission tower and storage facility 8 feet from Lincoln Elementary in Royal Oak. Royal Oak's School Board voted down Cellular One's proposal to build a transmission tower and storage facility on Dondero High School property. Royal Oak's City Commission declined to change its zoning policy and allow transmission towers built on city park property. Detroit passes restrictions on cellular towers. Ohio - Woodmere Village Council voted unanimously to reverse the planning and zoning commissions approval of Cellular One's transmitter on the roof of the Cambridge Court at the Eton office complex (Cellular Transmitter Gets Boot. Chagrin Valley Times, January 26, 1995) Nebraska - First Cellular Omaha announced that it would withdraw its application to build a transmission tower near Sunset Hill Elementary School. ( First Cellular Cries "Uncle" Withdraws Bid For Tower. Omaha World Herald, Thursday, June 1, 1995) Washington - Residents are battling as antennas spread across Washington neighborhoods. (Cell Aerials Face Rising Opposition, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 1, 1995; Towering Controversy: Expansion of cellular antenna systems a local, national issue, The Seattle Press, April 12, 1995 and Everybody Likes Cell Phones, But Not The Towers. The Seattle Times, February 16, 1995.) * STUDIES with source listed A lot of the studies used to determine human exposure standards are based on high power, short term test designs that are then used to extrapolate downward in order to arrive at presumed safety levels. But most exposures to the radio - frequencies in the real world, especially for those living near antennas, are of the long -term, low -level variety. These have very different biological parameters associated with them. So a lot of the research that's been done is of an inappropriate kind, and it's being used to reach inappropriate r21 000106 5x0/99 6:57 PM ,mar Towers. EMR, and Health Effects http: / /%— v-,.tixret. qet/— babbles conclusions. The low - level, short term studies are much fewer, but every one of them is disturbing. Following is a list of different studies, with their source of how I came across them. EMR Alliance Network News, Summer 1997 p. 38 The Wire Code system of categorization of residences developed by Wertheimer and Leeper (see study by them below) does a good job of categorizing residences with respect to the degree of hazard to their occupants from the raio- frequency fields surrounding electric power lines, even though this was not the intent of Wertheimer and Leeper when they developed their system of wire coding of residences. The recent review of Scientific evidence associating adverse health effects with proximity to electric power lines by a committee of the National Research Council, as directed by the U.S. Congress, was limited to consideration of power frequency (50 -60Hz) electromagnetic fields; it was reported on October 31, 1996, that there was no convincing evidence that such fields caused any human disease. However, another finding of this same committee was that there is a statistically significant association between childhood luekemia and the Wire Code Category of the child's residence; furthermore, this associations was robust, meaning that it is persistent, and therefore likely to be real. The EMR Alliance, Network News, Summer 1997, p.1 &p.12 An Australian study, funded by Telstra, conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr. Michael Repacholi (who has previosly espoused that cell phones are safe), Professor Tony Basten, Dr. Alan Harris ans statistician Val Gebski revealed a highly significant doubling of cancer rates in an group of mice exposed to GSM -type pulsed microwaves (in the cellular and PCS range) at a power density roughly equal to a cell phone transmitting for two half -hour periods each day; this was pulsed transmission as from a handset, not the steady transmission of a cell phone tower. A significant increase on B -cell lymphomas was evident. The implications of the B -cell (rather than the normal T -cell) lymphomas here is that the B-cell effects are implicated in roughl 85% of all cancers. Additional significance to this study is the fact that these changes occured at what are called "far- field" exposures, not the near field exposures such as would be experienced by cell phone users themselves. This has implications for those living near transmitter sites, as well as those in the immediate presence of people using cell phones. It's like the secondary smoke issue. Stand back from someone using a wireless device. Even the FDA recommends this, but few people know about it The experiment was conducted as a blind trial, using absolutely identical wquipment and conditions for two groups of 100 mice. The only difference between handling the two groups was that the power of one antenna was never switched on. Over 18 months, the exposed mice had 2.4 times the tumor rate of the unexposed - but this was later corrected downwards to a more confident 2 -times claim to remove other possible influences. THE EMR Alliance "Analysts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recommended that EMF be classified as "probable human carcinogens." Excerpted from the Executive Summary of the external review draft of EPA's report, 'Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenecity of Electromagnetic Fields,' June 1990, unpublished." 000107 21 5/30/99 6:57 PM ilular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects http: /hti��w.wwnet.net/— babbles from The Microwave News: ( *Special thanks to Jan Goldfarb, Farmington Hills, MI, for providing this source.) "One long -term RF/MW exposure study that has been completed supports a cancer risk. The five year, $5 million study by Dr. bill Guy at the University of Washington, Seattle, showed that small doses of radar -like microwave radiation caused a significant excess of cancer in rats .... The EPA found that "the U. of W. study can be said to have demonstrated the carcinogenic action of this type of pulsed RF radiation." The EMR Alliance, Summer Newsletter, 1997, p/ 12 In 1994, Drs. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh, at the Uiversity of Washington, Seattle, found both single and double strand DNA breaks in test animals exposed to cellular and PCS- frequency microwaves ( *from only a two hour exposure- Julie). Double strand DNA breaks are thought not to repair themselves and can lead to mutations. Dr. Lai just announced at an FDA workshop on this subject that in recent follow -ups. they noted that such breaks were blocked by the hormone melatonin. Melatonin, in several studies has been found to be suppressed in power line frequency exposures. Often, wireless technology is "modulated" with such ELF frequencies. There are complex synergistic relationships with many of the non - ionizing bands that fall well outside the range of thermal effects. This study was previously reported on in the Washington Post, Wednesday, June 7, 1995. In 1984, Dr. William Arthur Guy, at the university of Washington in Seattle, found an increase in malignant endocrine gland tumors, and in benign adrenal gland tumors in test animals. This was a five year, $5 million study of long -term, low -level exposures that was funded by the U.S. Air Force. The study also indicated immune system malfunctions in that nearly al of the initial test animals died from infections. This was reported in the Washington Post, Wednesday, June 7, 1995. Washington Post, 617/95: "A smaller study, by Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski of the Center for Radiobiology and Radiation Safety in Warsaw, Poland, found that RF/MW radiation can act as a tumor promoter in mice." "Drs. Leif Salford and Bertil Persson of the University of Lund in Sweden reported leakage through the blood -brain barrier (BBB) of rats at SARs as low as 0.01 W/kg. By comparison, the 1992 ANSUIEEE standard allows the head to be exposed continuously to over 100 times that level of radiation: up to 1.6 W/Kg for the gereral public and up to 8 W/Kg for workers, who are assumed to be aware of the risks. Even though RF/MW- induced BBB leakage was first reported by U.S. researchers in 1977, and even though it provides a possible mechanism for affecting brain biochemistry, no one here has seriously pursued this line of research. In microwave and radar personnel they have noted sharp increases in cancer- including lymphomas, melanomas, leukemias, and brain tumors, high blood pressure, headaches, memory loss, and brain damage. They also noted immune system abnormalities; first an over stimulation, then later immune suppression after continued exposure to low levels of the microwave bands. Wall Street Journal, 6/15/94 A number of reports , including a page -one story on the Wall Street Journal (June 15, 1994), have highlighted malfunctions in respirators, incubators, heart monitors and other hospital equipment that have been linked to portable wireless devices. 0001.c'b► 5130/99 6:57 PM 21 Mar Towers, EMR, and Health Effects http: //Nvww.,Awnet -net/— babb, ,fes/ excerpt from brochures, Southern California Edison and Sierra Pacific Power Company of Nevada: "Most, but not all, childhood cancer studies have reported a weak association between estimates of residential magnetic field exposure and certain types of childhood cancer." The EMR A.liance "The Association between residential exposure (to EMF) and childhood cancer is, in my judgement, strong and growing stronger ... I believe that 30% of all childhood cancers are associated with EMF exposure." Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health, State University of New York, New York State Department of Health" Insight, July 4, 1988 "A study by the state of Maryland found that computer screens, which pour out radio -type signals, have been linked to miscarriages in office workers." ( *Dr. Bob Goldberg, from Philadelphia, told me that the most similar wavelength in the EMR spectrum to the microwave wavelengths emitted by cellular towers is radio.... Julie) "Electromagnetic Fields," Stephen F. Cleary, Medical College of Virgina, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond Virginia: "...The limited amount of relevant data precludes drawing firm conclusions. However, the results are most consistent with the hypothesis that under certain, presently not well defined, exposure conditions, RF or microwave radiation may act as a cancer promoter..." From Zoning News, published by the American Planning Association: In a 1982 study by Dr. William Ross Adey, "Tissue Interaction with Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields" published in the American Planning Association, January 1991, Dr. Adey found tissue interaction with non - ionizing ENT's and that EMFs can cause disruption of cell growth/rapid cell growth. Dr. Adey is a neurologist from the Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, CA. ( *As far as I can tell from my research, cellular towers operate between .01 and. l uW /cm squared.... Babbles) Dr. Adey also found that at: • .01 uW /cm squared: there is altered/increased brain permeability • .03 uW /cm squared: increased brain amine levels • .05 uW /cm squared: men have a decreased sperm count 4 uW /cm squared: neuro endochrin effects • 10 uW /cm squared: genetic effects • 28 uW /cm squared: paragenetic effects (tumor causing effects) "Cells whisper together in a private and very faint language, ...by blocking these signals electronic smog can promote tumors and undermine the body's disease fighting ability, Dr. Adey,a cancer researcher, told a House subcommittee... 000109 21 5130/99 6:57 PM 'lular ToNvers. EMR, and Health Effects http: /hvuw.wwnet.net/— babbles "A number of reputable scientists... believe that unnatural electromagnetic fields (EMF's) can muck up the still - mysterious workings of the body's chemistry, especially the reactions that regulate cell growth and behavior." Many scientists suspesct that Extra Low Frequency (ELF) radiation impairs the ability of T- lymphocyte cells( the infection fighters of the immune system) to combat cancer. Note that ELF radiation is what surrounds power lines, not cellular towers. They are at opposite ends of the EMR spectrum. Of course, base and acid are at opposite ends, too, and they're both bad for you. This sort of explains the concept of Prudent Avoidance. ( *This study may be considered by some to be "controversial" because the results have not been duplicated. Studies take years to complete, so we will literally have to wait and see if this study can be duplicated or not. In the meantime I will repeat a common catch -phrase I kept running into while researching this topic: Prudent Avoidance. 'nuff said. Julie) Dr. Adey and Dr. Carl Blackman, a biophysist at the EPA Center at Research Triangle Park, NC have found in a series of studies that the human anatomy has critical "windows" which respond to some frequencies, but not to others. At set intervals in the non - ionizing bands, they observed changes in calcium flow. Calcium is the body's information "currency ". Cells use it for any mumber of critical functions. It's not a good thing to tamper with. What they actually found was a kind of ion channel "dumping" of calcium that was quite dramatic. It could have effects on many cell functions, including cell division. In work completed in 1997 for Motorola, Dr. Adey studied test animals for exposures like those of cellular phones and found a probable immune enhancement at non - thermal levels (Please see * in Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski's study, above, under The Washington Post... heading, as their study finds later immune suppression). Princeton Citizen's Coalition The following is a partial list of childhood residential studies excerpted from "Princeton Citizens Coalition on EMF'EMF Studies & Malignancy 1995' childhood residential & occupational studies" 111 Red Hill Road, Princeton, NJ 08540, (609) 924 -1959 (phone /fax). I have added additional information on these studies which I found elsewhere... Julie "This list of epidemiological studies comes from Medline, the medical data base of the National Library of Medicine, in Bethesda, Maryland. It includes all the residential and occupational studies that have been published in the peer- reviewed medical literature. An asterisk marks the results that medical scientists consider to be significant. Odds ratio refers to the ratio of cancer that has been found in the population of children or workers exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) compared to the ratio of cancer one would expect to find in a population of children or workers not exposed to EMFs, or a population exposed to a lower level of EMF. For example, in the study conducted by Fgyhting the relative risk of leukemia for children living in homes wih ENE levels of greater than 3 milligauss means that children living in such homes are 3.8 times more likely to develop leukemia than children living in homes with EMT levels of less than 3 000110 T21 5130/99 6:57 PM ular Towers. EMR, and Health Effects http: /h,,ww.,rwnet. i te' /—babb l� milligauss.( * Milligauss -mG- units are measurements of electromagnetic fields- EMF's. The EMF level in an average home is about half a mG. I mG = about F from a digital clock. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements -NCRP- endorses a goal of a 2mG exposure level for new day care centers, schools and playgrounds. *Taken from the NCRP Draft Report dated June 13, 1995 and "EMF's in San Diego Schools" by Hal Tyvol printed in The EMR Alliance Networks News Special Issue Spring 1995....Julie) References on Electromagnetic Fields and Malianancv: • * = statistically significant result • OR= odds ratio • ( ) = confidence intervals • NSS = not statistically significant at .05 level Childhood Residential Literature: Wertheimer, Nancy, and Leeper, Ed (1979), Electrical wiring configuration and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273 -284. • Case - control. • Wire code (birth addresses). • * Leukemia OR 2.28 (1.97- 2.65). • * Nervous system OR 2.48 (1.16- 2.36). • * Lymphoma OR 2.36 (1.66- 3.35). (* This study linked 344 children's cancer deaths with power - frequency fields. Children exposed to high EMF levels were 2 to 3 times more likely to get sick than those in less exposed homes...... Julie) Fulton, J. P., et al. (1980), Electrical wiring configurations and childhood leukemia in Rhode Island. American Journal of Epidemiology 111:292 -296. • Case - control. • Wire code. • * Leukemia OR 1.08 (1.00 - 1.16). Tomenius, L. (1986) 50 -Hz electromagnetic environment and the incidence of childhood tumors in Stockholm County. Bioelectromagnetics 7:191 -207. • Case - control. • Field measurement. • * All cancers OR 2.12 (1.73- 2.59). • * Nervous system OR 3.86 (1.63- 8.39). • * Leukemia OR 0.34 ( 0.17 - 0.68). C.,..; +- n n o+ ..1 (1 0441 0— ...,.,+...1 �+ , 4 . .,..,i o.,..­ +- AA u- ..,,...,.,a +;.. C.-IA, 00011 M 5/30/99 6:57 PM ,ular Towers, EMIR. and Health Effects http://Nv%,,w.w-,N-net.net/—babbles/ �J"V Iw", , %,t "I. kiiwh �,cw�,-�,v uaa vi as uuy vi %,uiiuuvvta •,uuwI uuu %,nwa ui%, w vv -I u, uiuru%. u%, It%, iva. American Journal of Epidemiology 128:21 -38. • Case - control. • Wire code. • * All cancers OR 1.53 (1.04- 2.26). • *Nervous system OR 2.04 (1.1 t - 3.76). • Leukemia OR 1.54 (0.09- 2.63). (* This study virtually replicates the Wertheimer study. 356 childhood cancer cases were looked at. Children exposed to high ENE levels were 1.5 times more likely to develop cancer. D.A. Savitz is now a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health. This study was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), supported by five major electric utilities and utilized medical records of tens of thousands of electrical workers. "The Savitz- Loomis study joins a growing list of over fifty positive residential and occupational studies which support the conclusion that exposure to elevated magnetic fields promotes the development of various cancers and leukemias including brain cancer, female and male breast cancer, spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and other serious health maladies." Quoted from The EMR Alliance Network News Special Spring Issue 1995 ...Julie) Petridou, E., et al. (1993), Suggestion of concomitant changes of electric power consumption and childhood leukemia in Greece. Scandinavian Journal of Soc. Med. 21(4):281 -285. • 679 deaths from childhood leukemia in Greece 1976 -1989. • Slopes of declining mortality correlated with slopes of increasing electric power use. • Positive association (NSS, p = 0.26). ( *Birgitta Floridus of the National Institute of Occupational Health in Solona, Sweden showed that 104 men exposed to high EMF levels on the job were more susceptible to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The Health risks increased in relation to exposure levels.... Julie) Verkasalo, P. K., et al. (1993), Risk of cancer in Finnish Children living close to power lines. British Medical Journal 307(6909):895 -899. Studied 68,300 boys and 66,500 girls in Finland 0 -19 years of age living within 500 meters of overhead power lines of 110 -400 kV in magnetic fields calculated to be greater than or equal to 0.01 microtesla. • Nervous sustem tumors: * Statistically significant increase in boys at greater than or equal to 2 MG, or with cumulative exposure of more than 4 mG- years. • All cancers: No association. • Leukemias: 1.5 No association. • Lymphomas: No association. Olsen, J. H., et al. (1993), Residence near high voltage facilities and risk of cancer in children. British Medical Journal 307 (6909):891 -895. • Case - control, Denmark. 1707 leukemia, lymphoma, and brain cancer cases. r2l 0001125130/99 6:57 PM lular Towers. EM R. and Health Effects http: / /,-vww•. ivw•net, =let/ -- babbles/ • All cancers: * OR 5.6 (Statistically significant association with exposure to magnetic fields from high voltage installations of greater than or equal to 4 mG). • OR 1.5 (NSS at greater than or equal to 2.5 mG). Hodgkin's disease: • Possible association between cases of HD at greater than or equal to 1 mG. Feychting, Maria, et al. ( *including Anders Ahlbom ... Julie)(1993), Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish high - voltage power lines. American Journal of Epidemiology 138(7):467 -481. Case - control, 33 CNS tumors and 39 leukemias. Calculated EMF from power records and spot measurements. Leukemia: • * Leukemia RR 2.7 (1 • * Leukemia RR 3.8 (1 • * P for trend = 0.005. 0 -6.3) for greater than 2 mG. 4 -9.3) for greater than 3 mG. • Lymphoma: No association. • CNS tumors: No association. • All childhood tumors: No association. ( *This study used detailed historical EMF- exposure records compiled by the Swedish government. It evaluated various types of cancer among over 400,000 individuals who lived within 300 meters of high voltage power lines at some point during 1960 -1985. Among this group, they found 142 children with various types of cancer as well as 548 adults with leukemia or brain tumors. Based on exposure records, Feyting and Ahlbom determined that youngsters subjected for long periods of time to 1 mG of radiation were 2 times more likely to develop cancer. At 3 mG, they were 4 times more likely. Adults subjected to very strong fields were 1.7 times more likely to get leukemia. President Bill Clinton said "Sweden has concluded that EMF's do lead to higher rates of cancer ... I, frankly was somewhat impressed by the arguments made by the Swedes." March 19, 1994 ... Julie) More studies, with sources: From Your Community Guide to Cellular Phone Towers, published by the Communications Workers of America, the AFL -CIO, and the EMR Alliance: The NCRP is currently the only agency authorized by Congress to set radiation standards. An NCRP draft report from 1995 called for strong action to curtail the exposure of the U.S. population to EMFs. The report states "Epidemiological studies in the USA and abroad... indicate a positive association between childhood cancers and exposure to magnetic fields..." f 21 oOv-L " 5130/99 6:57 PM ►Iular Towers. EMR, and Health Effects http: /hv-%vly. w- -net_neV —babb les/ According to a pilot study carried out in Sydney, Australia. by Dr. Bruce Hocking, children who lived in the communities closest to three broadcast towers, which house four TV sations and an FM radio station, had more than twice the rate of leukemia compared to similar children living some seven - and -a -half miles away. Hocking presented his new results in a position paper at the Department of Energy's annual review pf EMF research, which was held in Palm Springs, CA, in November, 1995. The radio frequency and microwave radiation exposures in the study are similar to those emitted by cellular facilities and were up to 1,000 times below many current RF/MW health standards. Polish military personnel exposed to RF and MW radiation had significantly higher rates of leukemia and lymphoma than those who were not exposed, according to a new study by Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski of the Center for Radiobiology and Radiation Safety and the Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, both in Warsaw. The risk of developing these cancers was more thatn eight times the expected rate for younger soldiers. The epidemiological study, the most detailed ever of an RF/MW- exposed population, spanned a 15 -year period, surveying and average of 127,800 soldiers a vLar, of whom, on average, 3,270 were exposed to RF/MW radiation. The exposed personnel's overall risk of all types of cancer was about double that of the controls. For leukemia and lymphoma, the risk rose to more than six times the wxpected rate for all age groups and to over eight times for those servicemen between the ages of 20 and 49. The exposure levels were well below those specified as "safe" by current safety standards. The study will be published in a special issue of Science of the Total Environment. You may contact the Amsterdam, Netherlands -based publisher, Elsevier, in the U.S. at 212/633 -3750 for more information. from "Electromagnetic Pollution ": "More than a dozen studies of men whose work exposed them to ELF electromagnetic radiation found an increased incedence of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain cancer. And two epidemiological studies have found that a statistically high number of children in Denver who had died of cancer had lived near high current electrical lines. "A recent study of New York State telephone workers by an epidemiologist at John Hopkins University showed that these people, who are exposed to magnetic fields on a daily basis, have an increased risk of developing leukemia and almost all types of cancer." The EMR Alliance "Kuijten -Brain Tumors This study found that children whose fathers worked as electrical repairmen with EMT exposure prior to the child's conception, were eight times as likely to develop astrocytomas (brain tumors)." Hal Nixon, Southeast Michigan Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health: "Children, fetuses and embryos are more sensitive to harmful agents and have a longer expression time than adults and so have smaller allowable doses." (expression time is the period of time between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer.) The EMR Alliance, Network News, Summer 1997, p. 42 00011.11 )f 21 5130/99 6:57 PM lular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects http:/A,,-w-%v.w-%Ynct.net/—babb14,qd In a 1973 Soviet study, blood cholinesterase, an important nervous system enzyme that p; events excessive accumulation of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter (excess levels can cause death), reduced to below 70 % of pre - exposure levels in rats and rabbits wxposed to the 30 -300 MHz range at intensities of only .ol mW /cm2 or .0019mW /cm2 for four months. According to the U.s. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), when organophosphate pesticide exposure results in a decrease of blood cholonesterase to less than 70% of the pre - exposure level, that exposure is considered unnacceptable due tv the health hazard. A 1974 Soviet study by the Russian Institute of Cell Biophysics produced an average drop in brain cholinesterase to 70% of pre - exposure levels in rats after one 60 minute exposure to pulsed 880 MHz at 1.5mW /cm2. Also, a U.S. government study conducted in cooperation with Soviet researchers in an effort to replicate Soviet findings discovered that microwaves of 2.4 GHz at.5mW/cm2 intensity resulted in blood cholinesterase inhibition in rats exposed during the three months for seven hours daily. This study confirmed prior Soviet accounts of non - thermal microwave health effects. The ENM Alliance, Network News, Summer 1997 A range of non - thermal effects have been observed since the 1940's when the U.S. Bureau of Ships began studying health effects in Navy radar personnel during WWII. In 1953, Dr. John T. McLaughlin, a medical consultant at the Hughes Aircraft Corporation, noted for the first time in radar workers, internal bleeding, leukemia, cataracts, headaches, brain tumors, heart conditions, and liver involvement with jaundice, as effedts from microwave /radar exposures. Other early research found disturbing blood abnormalities, cataract formation, and various cancers at non - thermal exposure levels. Since the 1950's, there have been over 15,000 reports that shows deep fundamental changes in biological systems to exposure of EMF's of various frequencies. What is really alarming is the broad spectrum of biological effects reported... The fact that we see biological effects both at the low as well as high frequencies, at vastly different power levels, makes it very disturbing. How to oppose towers (Largely excerpted from Your Community Guide to Cellular Phone Towers) In February, 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, comprehensive legislation overhauling the U.S. telecommunications industry. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 affirmed local government authority over the siting of cellular towers and other wireless communications facilities, despite the industy's push for amendments to take away lacal control. However, it pre -empts all local siting authority for health and safety issues. A number of Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed requesting the return of such authority to state and local control. The Act ... says that the siting of facilities can not be denied on the basis of RF emmission levels for facilities that are in compliance with the Commission standard. This section of the Act attempts to eliminate the "safety" issue from discussions at the local level. However, we believe the safety concern about RF emission can be addressed during a hearing on the siting of a facility. The act does not allow the siting to be denied soley on the basis of RF emission levels. Not since the robber baron days at the turn of the last century, and the building of railroads, has there been such contempt for local land -use authority, as we are now seeing with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In Section 704 of the act is this: State and local governments preserve their authority over the placement, 00011 ,f 21 5/30/99 6:57 PM ,filar Towers, EMR. and Health Effects littp://%,*vAv.%,,-%vnet.net/—babblesi construction, and modification of personal wireless services. But they CANNOT discriminate among providers, NOR PROHIBIT- directly or indirectly_ the provision of such services." The section further preempts state and local regulation of such placement on the basis of the environmental effects of radio - frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations for such emmisions. There is a move by industry at the FCC to shift all liability onto the site owners. Most people who are approached, or who offer their own land, are not told this, and they rarely know about the health effects other than what industry literature tells them. As part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC adopted new health and safety regulations for exposures to radio - frequency and microwave radiation. The new rules are based in large part on those recommended by the NCRP in 1986, although the FCC adopted some provisions fron the 1992 ANSIIIEEE guidelines. The FCC now requires routine evaluation of cellular and PCSA antennas if they are mounted lower than 10 meters above the ground and have a total power output over 11W. And the new rules generally endorse the distinction between "occupational" and "general Population" exposures used by the NCRP instead of the " control Ied/uncontrolIed" dichotomy cited by the ANSMEEE for continuous exposures. The most important part of opposing tower and antenna siting is to get your voice heard early. It is much easier, although not impossible, to fight a proposed tower site than it is to bring down and existing tower. It is easier to bring down a tower under construction than it is to bring down a tower that has existed for years. Industry Strategy The cellular industry realizes that timeliness and unity are their oppositions's best weapons. The industry has developed strategies for countering both. To limit the amount of time a community may have to mount a campaign against a tower, some companies will try their best to schedule a public hearing as quickly and as secretly as possible. Companies also offer monetary benefits to a popular community group in exchange for tower placement. This turns opposition to the tower into oppostion to the special organization. Often companies will request to place an antenna on top of a school building in exchange for providing needed money or supplies to the school. Or they might negotiate an agreement with a church for installation of the antenna in steeple facades in exchange for any number of things. Telecommunications representatives at public hearings and in the press routinely blur the distinctions between frequencies, likening their installations to 25 and 100 watt light bulbs in an attempt to confuse and placate concerned citizens. What they leave out is that their systems operate at ultra high frequencues (UHF) in the microwave bands, which are maximally absorbed by human tissue. And they also don't specify that each channel is 100 watts. Channels can be split as user demand increases, and there can be hundreds of channels on some towers. This is no longer a low- powered transmitter suitable to sit on top of someone's barn silo, but rather something closer to the power output of a local AM radio station. Companies have been known to use the strategy of "slap" lawsuits to intimidate opposition to tower intallation. Slap lawsuits are lawsuits that a company will bring against a group that it doesn't expect to win in an effort to drain the group's resources (time, money, momentum, etc.) 000:.' b T21 5/30/99 6:57 PM ular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects What a Cellular Company might say: http: /Avww. wtivnet. f-etl--babbh -s/ • The pollution caused by a tower is small • Measures have been taken to mitigate the negative aesthetic effects by limiting height, locating the tower in a secluded area, disguising the tower as a tree, etc. • Towers are inherenly beneficial to the community. They provide a needed service. As an inherently beneficial service to the community, cellular towers should be considered as public utilities in the eyes of zoning and planning boards. Thus they should be granted construction permits, even if they cause some negative effects. Their benefits outweigh their costs. (State laws concerning the issues of "inherent benefit" and cellula towers' status as a public utility vary considerably.) • Providing towers is important for public safety. Drivers with cellular phones can call the police, family of friends to help them in an emergency situation. They can also call the police about reckless drivers they encounter on the road. • Radiation standards have been set by the FCC. The FCC has the responsibility for assessing microwave safety based on existing standards. So microwave safety concerns are outside the jurisdiction of local planning boards. What the Opposition Might say • Towers can decrease property value. This can result from a number of factors including the eyesore factor as well as the cancer fear issue. • Cancer fears and aesthetic effects cause a town to lose its reputation as a safe and beautiful community and to lose tourist revenue. • The jury is still out on health effects. We should proceed with caution until conclusive evidence is in. • Cancer and other health concerns as welll as aesthetic effects cause a general lower quality of life. Issues such as peace of mind and freedom from fear should be issues that a local planning board considers. • Diesal generators that provide power to the tower cause air pollution and noise pollution. The wind hitting a tower can also cause noise pollution. (These arguments are more likely to succeed in more pristine areas.) • Additional towers for microwave antennas are not inherently beneficial. In virtually every community in the U.S., there are sufficient antennas for police officers, fire protection, and emergency medical services. These are essential services that benefit everyone in a community; they are inherently beneficial. Additional towers for private cellular phone companies are not. The number of Americans using cellular phones increases rapidly every day, but they are still a small minority of Americans. Citizens of a community cannot be expected to suffer the negative effects of cellular towers so that a minority can enjoy a luxury product. • In some cases, companies have chosen poorer sections of a town to build towers. Is this part of town, where people are unlikely to be able to afford cellular phones, being asked to house the eyesore and health hazard so the other side of town can use the phone? • Cellular phones cannot be considered public utilities for zoning purposes. Their public benefit cannot be compared with other utilities, such as wireline telephone and power lines for personal electricity. Both of these are unique services that almost every American enjoys. Cellular telephones are ijoyed by aminority of Americans and they do not provide a unique service, they merely expand wireline telephone coverage. • Cellular telephones are dangerous. Talking on the phone and driving at the same time is dangerous. Studies show that cellular telephone use substantially increases accident rates. There is also evidence that certain types of celular phones interfere with pacemaker and hearing aid operation. These negative effects on safety outweigh the positive effects of cellular phone use. Additional towers in the 21 000117 5/30/99 6:57 PM vlar Towels. EMR. and Health Effects http: //Nvww. nwnet. net/—babb ics/ community may make the community more dangerous, not safer. • Ask the company for a master plan of placement of future antennas. This will give the community an idea of how many towers will need to be placed and where the company will want to place them. If the company is honest in its estimate of future needs, the information may open people's eyes to the fact that it's not just one tower that they're voting on, but that hundreds of towers will need to be erected i a city. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, on communications company expects to place 400 antennas around the region. It estimates that 80 of these will be on stand -alone towers. In Chicago, two cellular companies have a combined total of about 850 cell sites in the region. Each puts up an additional 40 to 70 a year. With increased competition, each city may have eight or nine cellular companies building towers. • Often companies choose tower locations on the basis of cost - effectiveness while ignoring the needs of a community. If a group can show that there is a tower site that is a viable alternative to the one originally proposed, it can force a company to use that site. • Ask the cellular company for guarantees. For example, will they guarantee the safety of the tower? Will they foot the medical bills for any and all local citizens who develop illness and disease as a result of their facilities? Will they guarantee property values? Will they purchase homes and property, at fair market value, if such property becomes devalued or unsalable as a result of the facility? As a consumer, do you purchase products without a guarantee? Most likely not. If the cellular industry is asked to guarantee their products - with not strings attached - they may change their tune. Other Options If you lost the battle for placement of the tower, you may want to make sure that your community is compensated. Some towns have passed laws requiring the cellular companies to pay the community five percent of the company's gross revenues in addition to permit fees and annual fees. (See sample language) Other towns have limited the number of towers they will allow to be built. A town can require the company to develop and share with the planning commission a master plan. A community can pass a restriction on tower placement, i.e., not within 500 feet of a school, health care facility or residential property, etc. Or, a town can ask a company to propose another site. Property Devaluation The fear of health and environmental hazards from exposure to EMF from powerlines is expected to repeat itself in the cellular tower RF/MW radiation debate. The marketplace provides evidence that homes and property in close proximity to electric power lines have decreased in value from 30% to 40% and at times have become completely unlivable and unsalable. A December 8, 1993 article in The Wall Street Journal cites a study by a Houston appraiser showing that 10 properties bordering a transmission line sold for 13% to 30% less than 100 comparable properties away from the line, but in the same neighborhood. The article cites California homeowners who were unable to sell their home after powerlines were erected nearby. On October 12, 1993, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that landowners whose property is seized for constuction of high voltage power lines can collect damages if the value of the rest of their property falls because of public fears about safety. The StateCourt of Appeals said owners seeking compensation did not need to present scientific proof that power lines posed a health risk. The decision was the result of a suit involving 47 property owners who had filed suit against the New York Power Authority. The unanimous ruling found that landowners cn be compensated for diminishment of their property values F21 000:128 5130/99 6:57 PM ular Towers. EMIR, and Health Effects http:n c, ,..,v. «1%net.Ret/ -babbl `s/ due to "cancerphobias" caused by installation of high voltage power lines, regardless of whether there is scientific proof that the lines pose a health risk. Aesthetics Cellular towers vary in height, they are usually 10 -150 feet tall (that's 15 stories), and some of them can be up to 300 feet. A tower can be ugly and unsightly, especially in areas unaccustomed to tall structures. They can destroy a scenic view. They can cause damage to a prostine wilderness area. The noise of a tower can also be unpleasant. Many towers need loud generators to power lights and monitoring devices. Local residents find the flashing lights and low level hum from the facility harms their neighborhood and peace of mind. Making your case at a local hearing Typically, zoning commissions and master planning boards play a major role in the decision on whether or not to grant a permit to a cellular company to build a tower. A hearing before a planning of zoning board can be an excellent place for citizens' groups to oppose the construction of a tower. Before a tower is built, the company has to apply for permission to build the tower. The application usually is presented to the town/city planning or zoning board. Many times the plans are approved with little or no oppostion. But it's not difficult to mount an opposition campaign -- it just takes time and enthusiasm. As can be seen by the examples of communities fighting back, ordinary citizens are taking charge of their communty and saying no to cellular towers or requiring midification of the company's plans. David can beat Goliath. Remember, you don't have to convince the entire board to vote against the proposal, just a majority. In many cases that can be only two or three people. Numbers are key An opposition group should find as many people as possible to testify agains tower construction at the hearing. Expert witnesses are important, but non- expert witnesses cna potentially be just as important. It is always beneficial if a number of people are prepared to give detailed legal arguments, but one need not be a lawyer or zoning expert to give testimony. Ordinary citizens can be the most important players at a hearing. For citizen testimony, numbers are key. Hearings are designed to give officials anopportunity to see what the public opinion is on an issue. If a loarge number of citizens oppose construction of a tower, it will be hard for a board to grant a building permit, or change zoning regulations to allow the construction of a tower. A roomful of angry citizens is hard to ignore! If you oppose a tower because you fear cancer from long term RF and MW exposure, explain your concern at a hearing. If the law does not recognize these fears as legitimate, testify anyway. The more people who go before a hearing and speak from the heart about why they oppose a tower, the more likely the tower will not be erected. It can help a witness if he or she comes into a hearing well prepared, but a lack of preparedness or understanding of the law should not deter a tower opponent from airing his of her views before a board. 000119 C21 5/30/99 6:57 PM filar TokvccE. EMR. and Health Effects litip: / /Ntitivw.tirwnet.net/— babbles/ °a Expert witnesses, such as city planners, architects, microwave engineers and scientists can help a case. You may want to call a Realtor who can testify about property devaluation. You don't necessarily need to hire a lawer. As you talk with your neighbors and get people interested in the issue, ask if they know of someone who is familiar with the issue who would volunteer to help with expert testimony. Getting People Involved In order to get people to come to the hearing, you need to mobilize your community. Once you learn of a tower proposal, uopi can begin by talking to people in your neighborhood and surrounding areas who may be affected by the tower. Contact your neighborhood or community association, if one exists. (If one doesn't exist, this issue may be the catalyst for getting one established.) Contact groups in your community who may share ad interest in opposing a tower, such as other citizen or community groups, homeowners or tenant associations, labor unions, local churches, environmental groups, polot groups, etc. The EMR Alliance can put you in contact with community groups in your region or state. (See Resources for other contacts) Working with volunteers You only need a handful of dedicated people to launch a campaign to educate and to mobilize the community. Each person can help by: • talking to their neighbors either by visiting their homes or making phone calls asking them to join the campaign, sign a petition, make calls, attend the hearing, etc. • offering to help find experts to testify, • testifying themselves, helping others write testimony, • speaking about the issue with members of the zoning or planning board whom they may know on a personal basis, • producing and distributing to people's homes flyers about the proposal, and an alert to the hearing date, time, place • contacting the press to get coverage in the local paper to alert all citizens at all hearings • enlisting the support of other community officials Your Community Guide to Cellular Phone Towers, is available from the EMR Alliance for $10 ( $15 outside the US). Industry representatives may purchase thes 48 page publication for $25 (S35 outside the US). Send your check or money order (in US funds) to the EMR Alliance, 410 West 53rd Street, Suite 105, New York, NY 10019 USA. For additional information on this 48 page publication, contact either the EMR Alliance at (212) 554 -4073 or CWA at (202) 434 -1134. Links to related Internet resources: Contact the EMR Alliance by e-mail at emrall @aol.com. Infoventures' EMF information server 0001:0 C21 5/30/99 6:57 PM ul ^r Towers. EMR, and Health Effects http: / /— .%v�net.nYt/- babblrV Unplul:ged. Health and Policy Implications of the Wireless Revolution. Electromagnetic Fields The Environmental Protection Agency Other Resources: The Microwave News, PO Box 1799, New York, NY 10163, PH: (212)517 -2800, Fax: (212)734 -0316 The EMR Alliance, 410 W. 53rd. Street, Suite 402, New York, NY 10019, PH(212)554 -4073, Fax: (212)977 -5541 E -mail me These pages were formatted for the Web by Big Daddy's Kitchen. C21 000:1.- 1 5/30/99 6:58 PM Hillside mounted antennas and shelter Marriott Hotel property in San Dimas, I -210 at Via Verde Seven Antennas per sector shown, Airtouch proposes five per sector Hillside mounted antennas Marriott Hotel property in San Dimas, I -210 at Via Verde Seven Antennas per sector shown, Airtouch proposes five per sector Rev: 3 Created on 09/04/99 11:41 AM CAMP Docvmems\5itesWoorpark Example Photos.doc ATTACHMENT If C it W H BEFORE AIRToUCH Cellular MOORPARKNICTORIA 13931 LOS ANGELES AVE., MOORPARK, CA ATTACHMENT it D " RECEIVED AUG I 1 1999 City Ot M00rparx mmii�itr,� nrnrn�nnrnnrl+ n,Cy�Or:•,, . -. AFTER VIEW 1 LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARD SITE FROM LOS ANGELES AVE. BEFORE AIRToUCH °' Cellular MOORPARKNICTORIA 13931 LOS ANGELES AVE., MOORPARK, CA RECEIVED AUG 111999 City of Moorpark ..,mnni +�.� nnvn�nnrnnna n70�. ^m., _ AFTER VIEW 2 LOOKING NORTHWEST TOWARD SITE FROM LOS ANGELES AVE. BEFORE A[RToucH Cellular MOORPARMICTORIA 13931 LOS ANGELES AVE., MOORPARK, CA AFTER RECEIVE[ AUG 11 1999 City o! MoorparIx mmuni +,i nn�m�nmm�rl+ nMa� ° ^:. VIEW 3 VIEW OF SITE LOOKING NORTH FROM CONCRETE BATCH PLANT