Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.05.2007Exhibits (11/5/07) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) A Exhibits (Verizon Wireless Facility) Proof of Mail Receipts B C Proof of Publication Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Staff Report E F G H I J K L M Application Email from applicant with site plan attachment — 10/13/07 Email from applicant addressing Sections 3.08.07 and 5.03.13 — 10/15/07 Email from applicant addressing height — 10/17/07 Email from applicant with "natural grade" attachment — 10/19/07 Email from applicant with attachment showing building height based on natural grade — 10/23/07 Email from applicant with attachment showing site plan with topographic lines — 10/24/07 Email from applicant with attachment illustrating appearance of antennas — 10/25/07 Email from applicant with attachments: survey, disturbance plan, and site slope plan 10/30/07 /Ji ()t1 , C titk. 41, 171 °alfr/1 ‘iCL 4,ie (? 20,(' L/,n BOCC 11/05/2007 CM Verizon Wireless Facility Special Use Permit Project Information and Staff Comments REQUEST Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" APPLICANT / OWNER Verizon Wireless/David Hicks LOCATION 2550 Highway 82 WATER/SEWER N/A EXISTING ZONING Commercial General ADJACENT ZONING Commercial General PARCELNO. 218522300015 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny Ex . I. REQUEST Verizon Wireless requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a "Communications Facility" on a property located on 2550 Highway 82. The Applicant proposes to build a new communications facility for voice and data transfer and will be built on the roof of the 4th building away from the highway. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM Royal Mini Storage Glenwood Commercial, LLC Colorado West Upholstery Roaring Fork Plumbing and Heating Location II. PROJECT INFORMATION The proposed facility will be the furthest from the road of the four (4) buildings. (The subject building is in the construction process). The wireless facility will have 3 primary components: the antennas, equipment to support the antennas, and a back up generator to keep the facility running in the case of a power outage. There will be two sets of four (4) panel antennas. Each antenna will measure around one (1) foot wide and four (4) feet tall. One set of the four will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end. The other will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Some of these antennas will not be visible from the highway while others are minimally visible. The equipment to store the antennas will be located within the structure on the ground floor of the building. In addition to the electronics and support for the antennas, backup batteries will be installed in the event of a power failure. Additionally, backup diesel generators will be located outside the building adjacent to the equipment room. This generator will run once a week for 30 minutes as a maintained measure and in the event of a power failure. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM Verizon wireless Antennas at Glenowwood Commercial Project View Plane Drawing Wireless Facility Visibility from Highway 82 III. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and/or County Departments: City of Glenwood Springs The referral was sent on October 3rd, and in the response received by Building & Planning Staff from the Director of Community Development stated the following: "While the proposed antennas are relatively low profile, according to the view plane analysis included in the application, it would be preferable if they could bq'enclosed, screened from view or incorporated into the buil ng's design. We appreciate the efforts made to co -locate this facility but understand that this was not possible. Any efforts to reduce the visual impact of the antennae array would be in the City's best interests." IV. REVIEW STANDARDS Section 5.03 Review Standards Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; BOCC 11/05/2007 CM Staff Finding Once the construction is complete, the site will be visited once or twice a month by a technician in a small truck for routine maintenance. Water and sewer services will not be required. Phone and electrical services will be required, and will come from existing services at the Glenwood Commercial property. Current street improvements are adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the operation of a communication facility on the subject property. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Finding The proposed facility will be located approximatel(420 feet from Highway 82 and will be minimally visible from the right-of-way. Section 5.03.13 [Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility] Pursuant to Section 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Communication Facilities requires that such facilities be approved by the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, where appropriate. In addition the following standards will be used in the review of application for a communication facility: (1) All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communication Commission and any facility in compliance cannot be denied. Response The applicant has stated that "All Verizon Wireless facilities comply with the FCC emission requirements." The applicant has also provided the Universal Licensing System (ULS) License held by Verizon Wireless to establish such systems in the State of Colorado (2) The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner/lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. Response In an email sent by the applicant on October 15, 2007, it was stated that "To the best of my knowledge, the property owner would have no interest in preventing another wireless carrier from co -locating at this site." BOCC 11/05/2007 CM (3) A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable zone district unless an exception is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following: (a) Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural environment. (b) Design, materials and colors of antennas and their support structures, shall be compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip. (c) It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the same site. Response The structure will be set back from Highway 82 by approximately 420 feet and will be set behind 3 other buildings. There will be a total of 8 antennas which will all be mounted on steel pipes. Four (4) will be located on the roof at the east end of the building and the other four (4) will be mounted on a metal frame and attached to the west gable. The applicant also stated that they are willing to paint the wireless facility if necessary to blend with the surrounding natural built environment. According to the applicant, the structure along with the proposed wireless communications facility will not exceed the maximum allowed height of 35 feet in the Commercial General Zoning District. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM File PROPOSED Nf1EN *S ELN: �g =6' x T.O. EX VING 9l1. llN4 ROOF `V -Eat, a5'-3" * =?-c:ev: io'ma GROUND LLVEL ESST w BU8 Antennas at east end of building L Southeast Elevation 0 ftPusEii AN :...4- T V- SXI± * 0 dIXL ?s ea ea° s t 3F *$: ElEV. 3A =3" 3 ROOF CTEV: To -`76' x r� *± JAL KV SIX OF ®I:IUNG Antennas at west gable end Southwest Elevation Based on the existing elevation, as illustrated below, the measurement of the building height (based on the definition of height in the Zoning Resolution) begins at 24 feet where the natural grade of the site once existed. The highest point of the building terminates at 22 feet 3 inches and the proposed antennas, which are a total of 3 feet 3 inches, terminate at 15 feet 6 inches. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM Glenwood Commerical Project - Verizon Winless Antennas at a Height of 25'6" Based on Garfield County Building Height Definition TG. PROPOSED ANTENNAS _....___.... C7PV z E i.0 EXI571VC BLEIRNG IOX, REV: 2i .-r. t _. NnSitNh [ GROUND LEVEL JuRS0 E of- NELGN WORM GRAZE ELL0 —1a HUIi 11 J Natural Grade Elevation Measurement However, the applicant has failed to submit proper documentation, proving natural grade is correct, in the form of an elevation showing natural grade and the wireless facilities with a surveyors stamp. This documentation is necessary to prove that the building and wireless facility will not exceed the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. For this reason, Building & Planning Staff recommend Denial of the application. Based on the existing grade, the structure will terminate at 46 feet 3 inches at its highest point with the wireless facility terminating at 49 feet 6 inches as illustrated in the following graphic. The height in the graphic clearly exceeds the maximum height of 35 feet. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM OTIOSEU AN FEW:I; ELEV: 3/4%=6" G. KITTING BUILDING ROOF' ELEV: 4C-3" yy NATURAL GRADE O CENTER Or BUILDING 4' LLEV: 24`-O" f ROUND LEVEL E@5T SIDE O" 3J LDINO i' ELEV: ii,D, ± T J Existing Grade Elevation Measurement Additionally, no other communication facilities are currently located on the proposed site. V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit has not been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The application has not met the requirements of Special Use (Sections 5.03, 5.03.13, and 9.03) the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. BOCC 11/05/2007 CM VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the lack of information needed to prove natural grade, Staff recommends the Board Deny the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a "Communication Facility" on the subject building on parcel no. 218522300015. GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.garfield-countv.com EXHIBIT e 17$7:IVED AUG 2 7 2007 ;,IL LD COUNTY �l�L INC & PLANNING Special Use Permit GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.) ➢ Street Address / General Location of Property: 2 S".TD Ai ;ilk `'`°".7 F 2.) irl e n vi o o d 5- r : h s D. LgeDescri tion: o, res�, A' d• 6 ;1,- a o �i d or ,r• A, AT Z Sty �y ctti 52z, To, 4 N9w / 0Scresi. ➢ Existing Use & Size of Property in acres: 4 '/ /¢ j `owlerc id Pro rT7 b.- IA/ YvlejS I,/o✓I[/t hid l G ➢ Description of Special Use Requested:/Vert-1 o� p � ( r 1 -1,--d-di # , ; re le s S PA G' ! / 0 vim.. it 13.0 .. II � h ry 44. f 'I 4 v r-3 Ites 7 fro 0.— - L °`7 y2. > Zone District: G 6-- ➢ Name of Property Owner (Applicant): (rle,..wuo,( Cv erci 1-1'L , U 0`4 et 'k c.(i jib -709l ➢ Address: , - Telephone: PTD- 9Yr- io- Yr ➢ City: G- (eft word S r 7 w j State: I a Zip Code: g / bo ( FAX: 4< p_c( 4 ➢ Name of Owner's Representative, if any (Attorney, Planner, etc): // 0,, J;S Giose(- �1usser (0„,(11.;..,,I) LLL For Verity... Iit%�r�tJs3 ➢ Address: clbLg G-orior-- Dr Telephone: 303 -5 -s -y s`6 2 7 ➢ City: ( o. (d 4 r' State: CO. Zip Code: )'O30 r FAX: 303 -3 -P1 -Zoo 4 STAFF USE ONLY ➢ Doc. No.: Date Submitted: TC Date: ➢ Planner: Hearing Date: Verizon Wireless Project Narrative Purpose Verizon Wireless would like to build a new wireless facility at the Glenwood Commercial property located at 2550 Highway 82. This new site will fill in a coverage gap in the network for Verizon Wireless customers in the southern portion of Glenwood Springs including those traveling along Highway 82. Description This facility will be located in the fourth building in the Glenwood Commercial project, furthest up the hill to the north, furthest from the highway. The facility will have 3 primary components, the antennas, the equipment to support the antennas, and a backup generator to keep the site on the air in the event of a power failure. There will be two sets of four panel antennas. Each antenna will measure around 1' wide by 4' tall. One set of four will be mounted on the roof of the building at the east end. The other will be mounted to the vertical gable surface at the west end of the building. Some of these antennas will not be visible from the highway. Others will be just barely visible. The equipment to support these antennas will be located inside on the bottom floor of this building. In addition to the electronics to support the antennas, backup batteries will be installed in the event of a power failure. Finally, a backup diesel generator will be located outside the building, adjacent to the equipment room. This generator will run one a week for 30 minutes as a maintenance measure. Otherwise it will only run in the event of a power failure. Once construction is complete, the site will only be visited once or twice a month by a technician in a small truck for routine maintenance. No water or sewer services will be required. Phone and electrical services will be required, and will come from existing services at the Glenwood Commercial property. Closser Consulting LLC - 8/24/07 CRITERIA General Special Use Criteria 5.03.1— Utilities. N/A, no water or sewer will be required. 5.03.2 — Street Improvements. N/A. Once constructed, the site will only be visited once or twice a month by a technician is a small truck. 5.03.3 — Minimize Impact. The antennas will be barely visible if at all from surrounding public use areas. The equipment to support the antennas will be located inside the existing building. The backup generator will be hidden in an existing retaining wall. Use Specific Criteria —Broadcast Studio and/or Communication Facility 5.03.13.1— FCC Requirements. This facility will adhere to all FCC requirements. It cannot be turned on until these requirements are met. 5.03.13.2 — No technically feasible collocation opportunities were found. There will be no objections by Verizon Wireless or the property owner to collocation at this site. 5.03.13.3 — Freestanding facilities. N/A. This is not a freestanding facility. 6.17 0 0 0 ms 0 CD 0 F 2116-221-00-988 aUx S1 Z 3 07 / Ow'r;,II ZoJ 4)$esJvMats �v,��,r. .�►- o P a k,,e 2/yr-2_2_3 Y B vas, //////_C/1/LL//11/„,.6/f .s'////////////////// //////, 2 ROSEBUD CEMETERY Cif, w• ceaw009 sus Thr ormr CD 7191Cr 2 CD mer H� 41ti \r � r O Rr r�r n //�/��'\ / C3 / (� 0 N ,- M '3 N v O0 i) /-t'il Q CI fao 'O N. • iTF ro a c a rr'r r11 '1 rJi'Ftt_ It�l r1+i a) on 0 U Q) O L 0_ co Q) E E O U 0 O O) O 3 (0 O L- c a cO Dosser Consulting LLC — 8/24/07 All Properties Within 200' of the Glenwood Commercial Parcel Parcel # Owner/Address 1 218522300026 Nancy R. Byers 352 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO. 81657 2 218522300034 Universal United Corp. Employees Retirement Plan of Hajoca CO 127 Coulter Ave. Ardmore, PA. 19003-2410 3 218522300028 John E. Colby 2552 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601-4301 4 218522300027 Christine G. & Don L. Lynch 26241 S. Lakemont Dr. Sun Lakes, AZ. 85248 5 218522300036 Hughes, David J., Trust, Dated February 23, 1994, David J. Hughes, Settlor AND* 2191 1 Road Grand Junction, CO. 81505 6 218522300037 Margarito & Maria Eugenia 2566 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 7 218522300017 John Horch 2562 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 8 218522300018 Mountain Valley Developmental Services P.O. Box 338 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602-0338 9 218522300020 Michael & Jusith A. Wadyko 2560 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 10 2185222060018 Byers, Donald Craig, Trust 352A Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO. 81657 11 218522206013 Roaring Fork Market Place LLLP 1245 Mountain View Aspen,CO.81611 12 218522100965 Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6&24 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Closser Consulting LLC - 8/24/07 PCC Prince Creek Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 700 Give= S (nns. 0081601 970-945-4545 970945.448 Fat August 21, 2007 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Attn: Fred Jarmen Re: Verizon Wireless Special Use Permit Application for Glenwood Commercial LLC Property Located at 2550 Highway 82. Dear Mr. Jarmen: I am a the manager for the Glenwood Commercial LLC property at 2550 Hwy 82. On behalf of Glenwood Commercial LLC, I authorize Closser Consulting, LLC to process any and all land use approvals to enable Verizon Wireless to construct and operate a wireless telecommunication facility on this property. I understand that a special use permit is required. This authorization extends to any and all approvals which may be required. This authorization encompasses all actions necessary to secure the requisite approvals. Please do not hesitate to phone with any questions you might have. I may be reached at: 970.945-4545. Thank you. Sincerely, lieagh David Hicks Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:24 PM To: Christina Montalvo Subject: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Attachments: AOGlenwoodCommercialSitePlanStamped11.9.06.PDF Christina, Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F I've attached the site plan for the Glenwood Commercial project as you requested. And yes, I knew about the previous telecommunications application nearby, it was for Verizon Wireless but handled by someone other than myself. The plan had been to locate antennas on the roof of an Upholstery shop next door to the Glenwood Commercial project. A woman (Christina Lynch I think) who lived maybe 50' behind the upholstery shop had concerns about the radio frequency emissions. The antennas were going to be located at about the same level as her house. The proposed location at Glenwood Commercial is around 250' behind her house, and a good 40' higher. Hopefully she won't have the same concerns. Dave Dave Closser Closser Consulting LLC 4628 Gordon Dr. Boulder, CO. 80305 303-554-5627 Office 303-859-1080 Cell 303-554-2002 Fax See what's new atAOLc_ mand P;,1ak.e OL Your 10/30/2007 za 04 1.8 1 hid fil O Z w N (.7 Z 0 OD cT Q. G Acrl CD CD D (D ww O U c'6) f41y0/y 'SONI�idS . [ II ^ i1 I111 (MI:6 $ 3 OQV2i0f00 QOO&NflD i � o •� 1 ;i 01::E sxaNdo�IaASc 8811aMXIYQ ?nog 0NR:fling `'IVIoualiwoo GOOMN�'IO S ! gi `4 J i za 04 1.8 1 hid fil O Z w N (.7 Z 0 OD cT Q. G Acrl CD CD D (D ww O U c'6) f41y0/y Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:26 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Page 1 of 4 Christina, My Responses to your questions below in red. I might add that we will paint the antennas to match their surroundings. Dave Dave Closser Closser Consulting LLC 4628 Gordon Dr. Boulder, CO. 80305 303-554-5627 Office 303-859-1080 Cell 303-554-2002 Fax In a message dated 10/15/2007 8:42:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, cmontalvo@garfield-county.com writes: Hello Dave, After reviewing the application with Fred on Friday, he pointed out that you have to demonstrate how the building along with the solar panels will stay below the CL Zone District's maximum allowed height of 35' (3.08.07 in the zoning resolution). Height limit in Garfield County is defined as: "The distance, measured vertically, from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the mid -point between the front and rear walls of a building to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip shed or similar pitched roof." For this application the natural ground surface mid point is not clearly defined, but a conservative estimate would place it around 27' below the ridge of the new building. From this point to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak would measure around 18.5 feet. Our antennas will only extend 5' above the ridge. As a result we'll be well under 35'. Additionally, you have to address how the facility is consistent with section 5.03.13 (Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility) of the Zoning Resolution: 5.03.13 Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility: Such broadcasting studios and/or communication facility shall be approved by the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, where appropriate. (A. 84- 78;97-60) In addition, the following standards will be used in the review application 10/15/2007 i Page 2 of 4 for a communication facility: I've requested the FCC license from Verizon Wireless. I should have this for you in the next few days. 1. All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communications Commission and any facility in compliance cannot be denied. AB Verizon Wireless facilities comply with the FCC emission requirements. If they failed to do so they would lose their license to operate. 2. The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner/lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. To the best of my knowledge, the property owner would have no interest in preventing another wireless carrier from collocating at this site. 3. A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable zone district unless an exception is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following: (A97-60) Does not apply. This is not a freestanding telecommunications facility and it doesn't exceed the height limit. environment 10/15/2007 (a) Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural (b) Design, materials and colors of antennas and their support structures, shall be compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip. Page 3 of 4 (c) It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the same site. If you could write a response to each one of these to demonstrate how these are will be satisfied by the application and will be satisfied by the communication facility. Let me know how soon you can get back to me on these. Today would be great so we could review this in our Tuesday morning meeting. Please let me know. Thank you, Christina From: DCLOSSER©aol.com [mailto:DCLOSSER@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:24 PM To: Christina Montalvo Subject: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Christina, I've attached the site plan for the Glenwood Commercial project as you requested. And yes, I knew about the previous telecommunications application nearby, it was for Verizon Wireless but handled by someone other than myself. The plan had been to locate antennas on the roof of an Upholstery shop next door to the Glenwood Commercial project. A woman (Christina Lynch I think) who lived maybe 50' behind the upholstery shop had concerns about the radio frequency emissions. The antennas were going to be located at about the same level as her house. The proposed location at Glenwood Commercial is around 250' behind her house, and a good 40' higher. Hopefully she won't have the same concerns. Dave 10/15/2007 Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:59 AM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Page 1 of 5 Christina. I reviewed the drawings I sent to you and I think I see how you came up with 49'. On one elevation drawing the top of the antennas are shown at an elevation of 49'6". Notice however that the elevation at the lowest level in the building is 10'0". Not sure why the architects did this. Normally this point would have an elevation of 0'0". So, from the bottom of the building to the top of the antennas measure 39'6" not 49'6". The Garfield County definition for building height references the undisturbed natural grade at the mid point of the building as the starting point for measuring building height. I know this point will be at least 5' above the floor in this building. I'll have our architects create an additional elevation that shows where natural grade would be relative to the new building. Hope to have that for you in a few days. Dave Irf a message dated 10/16/2007 1:54:51 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, crrrontaivou@gafiiekJ-coufty.corn writes: I Hello Dave. We reviewed your last email in our staff meeting this morning and it was decided that we need elevations showing your explanation of how the building well be well below the maximum allowed height of 35'. Right now. the elevations submitted with the application shows that, with the wireless facility included, the maximum height will be 49.. Please submit some new elevations when you have an opportunity. Thank you. Christina From: DCLOSSER@aol.com [mailto:DCLOSSER@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:26 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless Glenwood Commercial App 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:07 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Verizon Wireless Application - FCC License Attachments: FCCCO3LIC101707.pdf Christina, I've attached the FCC license information you requested. The FCC issues a licence for a "Market" which may include many sites. In this case the Market is "CMA350 - Colorado 3 - Garfield" of which this new site will become a part of. Dave Dave Closser Closser Consulting LLC 4628 Gordon Dr. Boulder, CO. 80305 303-554-5627 Office 303-859-1080 Cell 303-554-2002 Fax See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/30/2007 ULS License - Cellular License - KNKN398 - COLORADO RSA NO. 3 LIMITED PAR... Pa20 1 of ULS License Cellular License - COLORADO RSA C. 3 :JEMITED PARTNERS -E? Cali Sign KNKN398 Radio Service CL - Cellular Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market CN1A350 Colorado 3 - Channel BIccK B Garfield Submarket 0 Phase 2 Dates Grant 10/11/2000 Expiration 10/01/2010 Effective 05/22/2007 Cancellation Five Year Buildout Date 01/02/1996 Control Points 1 500 W. Dove Rd., 1 ARRANT, Southlake, TX P: (800)264-6620 Licensee FRN 00015/2403 Type Limited Partnership Licensee COLORADO RSA NO. 3 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP P:(770)797-10/0 1120 Sanctuary Pkwy, #150 GASA5REG F:(770)797-1036 Alpharetta, GA 30004 E:Nettiwrrk.ReguiatoryC VerizonW reless.corn ATTN Regulatory Contact Verizon Wireless Sonya R Dutton 1120 Sanctuary Pkwy, 4 150 GASA5REG Alpharetta, GA 30004 ATN Regulatory P:(770)797-1070 F:(770)797-1036 E: Network.Regulatory@VerizonWreless. com Gwnersi ip and Qualifications Radio Service Type Fixed, Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected yes Allen Ownership Is the applicant a foreign government or the representative of No any foreign government? Is the applicant an alien or the representative of an alien? No Is the applicant a corporation organized under the laws of any No foreign government? Is the applicant a corporation of which more than one-fifth of No ireless2.1cc.vov I,.ls_1ppIUIsSearch'Iiccusc.);p?IiCKey=l3?88&priatabie 10/17/2007 ULS License - Cellular License - KICK. 398 - COLORADO RSA NO. 3 LIMITED PAR... Page 2 of 2 the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country? Is the applicant directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country? If the answer to the above question is Yes', has the applicant Yes received a ruling(s) under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act with respect to the same radio service involved in this application? Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No' to each of the Basic Qualificaticn questions. Yes t r rnnograpihics Race Ethnicity Gender rittp:f/wireless2.ice.gov,U1sAppit IsSearch;iicense.jsp`.'licKeyr 288&prin€able 10/17/2007 Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:16 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Attachments: Natural Grade Elevation 10-19-07.pdf Page 1 of 5 a a EXHIBIT Christina, I've attached the elevation your requested. This is the same elevation that shows up on page Z3 of the drawing set. We were able to overlay the natural undisturbed grade topography over the site plan which shows all the building. Notice the dashed line running across the middle of the building in this elevation. This is where natural grade would have been on this building. A note on the left shows the elevation of natural grade at the mid point of the building as 24'0". The top of the antennas are at 49'6". This put's the antenna height at 25'6", well below the 35' height limit. Let me know if you need anything else. Dave In a message dated 10/16/2007 1:54:51 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, cmontalvo@garfield-county.com writes: Hello Dave, We reviewed your last email in our staff meeting this morning and it was decided that we need elevations showing your explanation of how the building well be well below the maximum allowed height of 35'. Right now, the elevations submitted with the application shows that, with the wireless facility included, the maximum height will be 49'. Please submit some new elevations when you have an opportunity. Thank you, Christina From: DCLOSSER@aol.com [mailto:DCLOSSER@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:26 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com 10/30/2007 T.O. PROPOSED ANTENNAS z C3 J CO 0 0 CC U 410 LAJCC CC Z ii N W LY -11 La SOUTHEAST ELEVATION II 170 Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:44 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless - Glenwood Commercial App Attachments: Natural Grade Elevation titled 10-23-07.pdf Page 1 of 7 Christina, I've attached another elevation which should satisfy your request below. In this elevation natural grade at the building center is shown as the zero elevation, based on the Garfield County building height definition. The tops of the antennas are only 25'6" above this point, well below the 35' height maximum. Dave In a message dated 10/23/2007 2:12:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, cmontalvo@garfield-county.com writes: Hello Dave, We discussed the height issue in our staff meeting this morning along with the attorneys. They stated that you'll have to dearly illustrate in an elevation how the structure with the wireless facility added will stay "well" below the 35 foot max. I thought this newest elevation would show that but it still shows 49'6" at its highest point. You'II want to clearly show how this will stay below the 35 foot max. You state that "The top of the antennas are at 49' 6". This puts the antenna height at 25'6", well below the height limit." But the illustration and the text you emailed do not clearly walk the reader through how this meets the requirement. You'II want this to be really clear so basically you walk the BOCC (visually and verbally) through how the building stays below the 35' requirement. Please submit another elevation showing how the building stays below the 35' max using the height measurement method in the zoning resolution and write up some text that clearly guides the BOCC through your illustration. I have to complete this report by this Friday so please send this in as soon as you can. Thank you, Christina From: DCLOSSER@aol.com [mailto:DCLOSSER@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:16 PM 10/30/2007 117 N 45 0) c U) W • Q l W < U) c L... 'FS m O Nc_ • O U -0 o a3 a3 0_C c U O W ♦ V E U O O (a) V i I 1 I r- --r I Ip L r� LJ 0 a a 2 ---J 0 5 O � W N opo z I O z w ca co 49- 49 BASED ON TOPO MAP PROVIDED BY RAILTON MCEVOY ARCHITECTS SOUTHEAST ELEVATION Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:14 PM To: Christina Montalvo Subject: Verizon Wireless Project Attachments: SitewithTopol0-18-07.pdf Christina, Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT I've attached the drawing we just discussed on the phone. This is what the Verizon Wireless architect used to produce the elevation which shows the original natural grade with respect to building 4. The Glenwood Commercial project architect put this together for me. He contacted his civil engineer who was able to send him an electronic copy of the original survey. The architect was able to overlay the survey onto his site plan for the entire project. The drawing I've attached only shows building 4 and part of building 3. At the end of building 4 on the bottom of this page you'll see two numbers, 5921 and 5936. These are the elevations for the lower and upper floor of the building respectively. If you look closely at the overlayed topo lines, you'll see that the original grade at the mid point of the building, at the end of the building, is around 5935'. This is 14' above the first floor level. This is the magic number we were after, the base point for height determination. I know from other elevations that it's 39'6" from the first floor level to the top of the antennas. Subtracting 14' gets us to the 25'6" height of the Verizon Wireless antennas. As I mentioned when we spoke, I suspect that your zoning department may have a full site stamped survey on record from the original Glenwood Commerical project zoning submittal. I'm not sure when they went through the zoning process, but it's been at least 3 years. Dave Dave Closser Closser Consulting LLC 4628 Gordon Dr. Boulder, CO. 80305 303-554-5627 Office 303-859-1080 Cell 303-554-2002 Fax See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/30/2007 GAS METER, ELEC. MEIL'S CONNECTION & STROBE HC. PKG. SIGN TYP. a;, ICY VEHICLE- ',OUND AREA NALL DO NEW BUILDING 4: 1—WAREHOUSE; 8,400 s.f. 2—OFFICE: 8,400 s.f. Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:23 PM To: Christina Montalvo Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless Project Attachments: WPA-80063-4CF.pdf Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT Lib Christina, The only party of this wireless facility that will be visible will be the antennas mounted on the roof. The primary equipment will be located inside the building. The backup generator will be located behind a concrete wall hiding it from view. I've attached a specification sheet for a typical antenna used in this type of application. It may not be the exact antenna used but it will be very close. There will be 8 of these antennas. Four will be mounted on top of the roof to steel pipes, at the East end of the building. The other four will be mounted to a metal frame attached to the gable at the West end of the same building. We will paint them if necessary so they'll blend into their backgrounds. Dave In a message dated 10/25/2007 3:28:10 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, cmontalvo@garfield-county.com writes: I still need to know what the materials of the wireless facility will be made of and what color it will be. Do you have a photo example of what it will look like? Maybe something from a brochure? The web? From: DCLOSSER@aol.com [mailto:DCLOSSER@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:14 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Verizon Wireless Project Christina, Let me know as soon as you can if you will need a drawing with an engineers stamp. I'll be happy to get it for you but this is something that'll probably take me 3 or 4 days to put together. If you do need something, please be as specific as possible about what you want to see on this drawing. Thanks, 10/30/2007 Mechanical specifications Length 1205 mm 47.4 in Width 300 mm 11.8 in Depth 100 mm 3.9 in 4) Weight 5.4 kg 12.0 lbs Wind Area Front 0.361 m2 3.88 Side 0.120 m2 1.28 ft2 ft2 Rated Wind Velocity (Safety factor 2.0) >431 km/hr >267 mph Wind load @ 100 mph (161 km/hr) Front 516 N 116 lbs Side 194 N 43.7 lbs Antenna consisting of aluminum alloy with brass feedlines covered by a UV safe fiberglass radome. Mounting & Downtilting: Mounting brackets attach to a pipe diameter of 050-127 mm (2.0-5.0 in). Mounting bracket kit #36210002 Downtilt bracket kit #36114003 Electrical specifications Frequency Range Impedance 3) Connector 1) 1) 2) 1) 1) 1) VSWR Polarization Gain Power Rating Half Power Angle H -Plane E -Plane Electrical Downtilt Null Fill Lightning Protection 806-960 MHz 5052 NE, E -DIN Vertical 13 dBd 500 W 63° 16° 0° 10% Direct Ground Patented Dipole Design: U.S. Patent No. 6,229,496 81 "Typical Values Power Rating limited by connector only. ')NE indicates an elongated N Connector. E -DIN indicates an elongated DIN Connector. 4)The antenna weight listed above does not include the bracket weight. Improvements to mechanical and/or electrical performance of the antenna may be made without notice. Vertically Polarized, Panel 63° / 13 dBd Radiation -pattern') -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 -170 160 170 160 150 140 130 120 WPA-80063/4CF Horizontal -110-100 -90 -a0 -70 -120 -130 -140 -150 16 -170 1801 170 160 -60 50 -40 30 -20 10 150 140 130 20 110 100 g0 80 70 Vertical 60 / 20 / 30 /40 50 Featuring upper side lobe suppression. Radiation patterns for all antennas are measured with the antenna mounted on a fiberglass pole. Mounting on a metal pole will typically improve the Front -to - Back Ratio. CF Denotes a Center -Fed Connector. 8 -960 } When ordering. replace " with connector type. Amphenol Antel's Exclusive 3T (True Transmission Line Technology) Antenna Design: • Watercut brass feedline assembly for consistent performance. • Unique feedline design eliminates the need for conventional solder joints in the signal path. • A non -collinear system with access to every radiating element for broad band- width and superior performance. • Air as insulation for virtually no internal signal loss. Every Amphenol Antel antenna is under a five-year limited warranty for repair or re- placement. Antenna available with center -fed connector only. 1300 Capital Drive Rockford, IL 61109 Toll -Free (888) 417-9562 Tel. (815) 399-0001 Fax. (815) 399-0156 Email: antel@antelinc.com www.antelinc.com ...........____ Amphenol Antel, Inc. Inc Antenru Tt noiogy Complo} Revision Date: 6/3/04 Christina Montalvo From: DCLOSSER@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:50 PM To: Christina Montalvo Cc: aclosser@idcomm.com Subject: Glenwood Commercial Survey Attachments: Original Survey Package.pdf Page 1 of 1 Christina, I've attached the survey information you're are after. It includes the original stamped survey, a sheet which shows the topography, and a sheet which shows the buildings over-layed onto the topography page. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Dave Dave Closser Closser Consulting LLC 4628 Gordon Dr. Boulder, CO. 80305 303-554-5627 Office 303-859-1080 Cell 303-554-2002 Fax See what's new at AO!. corn and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/30/2007 s'Oga-Ct6 ("'S) O9L2 OP003 '5"'"°'"15 nueaVOPOOIO3" sofia,wiS Pal PahaM584( ....71keyody031V1 yn.o([°vAi 402Th'YDS alop aa!a!nel 10 u .1 . .ou J0 au pays er Seal V/ lea 0, lee P" o . S1.2111 A 0.1e1677 1.1(11 MOW -z fi OA Ax to rri co �tC DATE 8Y RD/ISBN/ISSUE APP/ DATE © JLB ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS HISTORIC DISTURBANCE PLAN GLENW00D COMMERCIAL STATE HIGHWAY 82 COUNTY OF GARFIELD. STATE Of COLORADO Civil Engineers d 1 EXHIBIT A VZW CO3 VALLEY VIEW 2550 HWY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO GARFIELD COUNTY 3y' PROPOSED VZW ANTENNAS 27' "OLD ORIGINAL GRADE" GRfUNI;-LEVE-E-- fJf/JJJ�fl,,,iJ- �pp REG/S�<I .p. CR44 29412 0 . 1 1/2/07 . ti 2Y4L "1(lIJ DAV/D W:--4r.+010ELD, PLS 2947 2 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CALVADA SURVEYING INC. REFERENCE TO THE "OLD ORIGINAL GRADE" IS BASED ON AERIAL MAPPING OF THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS PROVIDED BY CLIENT (KDC ARTCHITECTS, ENGINEERS PC). CALVADA SURVEYING, INC DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH INFORMATION. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE LESSOR'S PROPERTY. THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT A MONUMENTED SURVEY. CAL VADA SHEET 1 OF 1 SURVEYING, INC. 56 Inverness Drive East Suite 101 Englewood, CO 801 12-1 448 Phone: (720) 488-1303 — Fax: (720) 488-1306 JOB NO. 07012 DATE: 1 1 /2/07 SCALE: 1 "=20' Cellular Radio Frequency Power Density at the Valley View cell site Prepared by' David Kennan .i‘ii23,0- A . 45.5 feet ERP'C'an. 25 Netts ntenna Height: Measurement Ht: 5 feet Anterra: ALP -9212-N Number of Radio Cnanneis: 250 Distance From Tower Adjusted Terrain Elevation Angle Below Horizon (degrees) Antenna Vertical Pattern (dB) Distance From Antenna (Feet) Channels Power Density (uWJcm^2) 3..6 of Revised FCCJANSi Standard (580 uWlcm^2) Comments: (Feet) 0 (Feet) 0 90.0 -34.7 40.5 0.36275 0.06% 1 0 88.6 -34.7 40.5 0.36253 0.06% 2 0 87.2 -34.5 40.5 0.37892 0.07% 0 85.8 • -32.6 40.6 0.58510 0.10% 3 4 0 84.4 -31.9 40.7 0.68452 0.12% 5 0 83.0 -29.5 40.8 1.13314 0.20% 0 81.6 -28.4 40.9 1.51417 0.26% 6 7 0 80.2 -27 5 41.1 1.84850 0.32% 0 78.8 -25.6 41.3 2.83779 0.49% 8 9 0 77.5 -24.9 41.5 3.30119 0.57% 0 76.1 • -24.2 41.7 3.83621 0.66% 10 11 0 74.8 -22.9 42.0 5.11320 0.88% 0 73.5 -22.3 42.2 5.79507 1.00% 12 13 0 72.2 -21.8 42.5 6.41232 1.11% 0 70.9 -20.9 42.9 7.77289 1.34% 14 0 69.7 - -20.5 43.2 8.39029 1.45% 15 16 0 68.4 -20.2 43.5 8.84338 1.52% 0 67.2 -20.0 43.9 9.10176 1.57% 17 18 0 66.0 -19.8 44.3 9.36089 1.61% 19 0 64.9 -19.6 44.7 9.62083 1.66% 20 0 63.7 -19.6 45.2 9.43693 1.63% 0 62.6 -19.8 45.6 8.83466 1.52% 21 22 0 61.5 -20.0 46.1 8.26625 1.43% 23 0 60.4 -20.4 46.6 7.38252 1.27% 0 59.3 -20.9 47.1 6.44014 1.11% 24 25 0 58.3 -21.5 47.6 5.48780 0.95% 0 49.2 -31.4 53.5 0.44397 0.08% 35 45 0 42.0 -18.3 00.5 7.08615 1.22% 55 0 36.4 -19.6 68.3 4.12704 0.71% 65 0 31.9 -33.3 76.6 0.14003 0.02% 75 0 28.4 -26.1 85.2 0.59329 0.10% 0 25.5 -19.9 94.2 2.02686 0.35% 85 95 0 23.1 -18.8 103.3 2.17042 0.37% 100 0 22.0 -18.9 107.9 1.94335 0.34% 110 0 20.2 -21.0 117.2 1.01512 0.18% 0 18.6 -27.3 126.7 0.20385 0.04% 120 130 0 17.3 -27.9 136.2 0.15360 0.03% 0 16.1 -22.4 145.7 0.47572 0.08% 140 150 0 15.1 -17.8 155.4 1.20718 0.21% 200 0 11.4 -7.8 204.1 6.99843 1.21% 250 0 9.2 -4.9 253.3 8.85897 1.53% 300 0 7.7 -2.9 302.7 9.82716 1.69% 350 0 6.6 -2.1 352.3 8.72171 1.50% 400 0 5.8 -1.4 402.0 7.86982 1.36% Assumptions: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 880 MHz Transmit Channels Channels Calculations antenna. Attenuation Frequency Power Density Power Density are worst is in the includes case, based due to surrounding far -field region. 100% reflected on the antenna structures energy from the ground and surrounding sectors. pattern maximum directly in front of the is ignored. aonD Suggested Conditions of approval: 11/05/07 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate building permits from the County Building and Planning Department. 3. All facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emission requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 4. The Applicant shall paint the proposed fiberglass screening surrounding the antennas to match the color of the portion of the building on which they are "-7 located. In addition, the Applicant shall install a roof feature at the same color as the screen to cover the antennas that has a roof pitch to match that of the building. 5. The proposed generator to be housed 444,sicle- the existing building (west end) shall comply with the state statute regarding emission of noise. 7 —9 h, 41-2C (e/ 0;1 J, 21) iv November 5, 2007 To Garfield County Building and Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado We are Mike and Judy Wadyko, homeowners at 2560 HWY 82, Glenwood Springs. As such, we object to the proposed antennas to be put on the property of Mr. David Hicks near us for two reasons. 1. The electro magnetic impulses from such antennas are likely to be damaging to the health of residents in the area, including ourselves. 2. Since it is necessary to put up signs by the antennas saying DANGER - HAZARDOUS - KEEP OUT, prospective buyers of our property would feel cautioned and our home's property value would be decreased. We appreciate your consideration of the health and property values of the residents of this neighborhood and would encourage the antennas to be placed in a more commercial or industrial area. Thank you sincerely, Mike Wadyko Judy Wadyko A Report on Electromagnetic Radiation - Microwave Frequency and Cellular Transmission Towers by C. R. Beckett CRB Design V Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (303) 963-0437 Copyright © 1995 by CR Beckett This report will address the following topics: • A brief introduction to the frequency of cellular towers - microwave radiation - and what this means. • The scientific and public concerns regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation. • Federal policies and recommended standards for the exposure to microwave radiation. • A summary of actions that other communities are taking in regard to cellular tower sites. • The impact of the presence of microwave towers on real estate values. • Recommendations to minimize harmful exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation. An Introduction to the Electromagnetic Spectrum and Microwave Frequency The "Electromagnetic Spectrum" is a way that electromagnetic fields or energy have been organized, based on their frequency of oscillations. The non ionizing electromagnetic (EM) spectrum starts with zero, with direct current (DC) having the lowest frequency (no oscillation), and extends up to visible light with trillions of oscillations per second. Frequencies of oscillation above visible light are considered to be ionizing and include X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays. The EM spectrum is divided into regions based on frequency and usage. The "Frequency of a wave is the number of times per second that a complete wave (or one wavelength) passes a fixed point. The electricity we use to light our homes and operate our TV sets has a frequency of 60 cycles per second. The scientific term for cycles per second is hertz (Hz). By comparison, microwaves range in the millions to billions of hertz." 1 Hertz is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation in cycles per second. One Hz is one cycle per second. One thousand cycles per CRB Design a Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 2 second is 1 kilo hertz (kHz). One million cycles per second is 1 mega hertz (MHz). One billion cycles per second is 1 giga hertz (GHz). The Electromagnetic Spectrum is divided into two parts - non ionizing electromagnetic energy and ionizing electromagnetic energy. Ionizing energy such as X rays is strong enough to de- stabilize a molecule by changing its structure. Non -ionizing energy can affect a molecule in a variety of ways, but it does not change its basic structure. "Non ionizing radiation is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from zero frequency to the frequencies of visible light. This radiation does not contain sufficient intrinsic energy to cause ionization of atoms in the body's chemicals." 2 Non ionizing electromagnetic energy frequencies; Direct Current (DC) Extremely low frequency (ELF) - power frequency Very low frequency Radio frequency Long wave Medium wave Short wave Very high frequency (TV -VHF) Ultra high frequency (TV -UHF) Microwaves Infrared radiation Visible light Ultraviolet radiation Ionizing radiation is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum extending beyond visible light. This radiation does contain sufficient intrinsic energy to cause ionization of atoms in the body's chemicals. Ionization does cause disruption of molecular structures. Ionizing electromagnetic energy includes; X rays Gamma rays CRB Design '' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 3 Please refer to the enclosed chart of Non ionizing Electromagnetic Spectrum. The following describes the divisions of the Non ionizing electromagnetic energy spectrum: "ELF - Extra low frequency is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from zero to 1000 cycles per second. This includes the 60 -cycle power frequency in the United States, the 50 cycle European power frequency, and the U.S. Navy's submarine communication system at 45 and 75 cycles per second. VLF - Very Low Frequency is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from 1000 cycles per second (1 kHz) to 500,000 cycles per second (500 kHz). Radio Frequency is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum extending from 500,000 cycles per second (500 kHz) to 500 million cycles per second (500 MHz). Microwave is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum extending in frequency from 500 million cycles per second (500 MHz) up to the frequencies of visible light." 2 Electromagnetic (EM) fields and Electromagnetic (EM) radiation are two types of electromagnetic energy and are the effects of the frequencies made up in the EM Spectrum. EM fields result from the flow of electric current- through a wire, for instance. This electromagnetic field has a direction of movement away from the electrical current and contains both a magnetic field and an electric field. An Electromagnetic (EM) field is a force field that extends or radiates out away from any moving electrical current. This is sometimes termed radiation in the sense that electromagnetic fields radiate out and away from the source and have characteristics of particulate radiation. CRB Design 'W Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 4 G Cm li 1- 0 w �/0 V >- cc w z w 0 1w z a 2 0 CC i- 0 0 w J w z N Z 0 z 0 Z 980 MHz -1.3 GHz 2.5-4.13 GHz 500-800 MHz N N 0 N 0 Ir. N LI 0 0 r N 2 0 r 2 N 2 2 0 0 1- T. N 17-20 kHz = N O •x 0 0r r CI N 0 Microwave c 1 > taco N R t N 4-0 V ,%) -0 _ c 2 ; No 0 R c • CU • 0 c ....c N L O N i t co- 'a O 3 o CO ++ L W • 13 'V E�EJo0 ,. - c4< o+ -''E roc a�—�i5o=E - .2 o=a)>-oE,iioE .Q• m� •,— a) co t4 0 co - O. N N N i o c o w as c,__ad +r 0 co c 0.c++ L co C x Q. > R�.- o E 1— — ._ LL _ •X N o = oos o > V F- I— ca LL cc _ 2> LL AM Radio N 0 > co c 0 t co J c 00 N N 0 0 T 11 N ✓ 02 T All Frequencies shown are approximate reference from: The EMF Book In order to transmit electricity efficiently, it is necessary to transform it into an alternating current (AC) which reverses polarity 60 times per second (60 cycles). When alternating currents are sent through wires and appliances, they produce Electro -magnetic Fields (EMFs). The most common source of EM fields are power lines, such as the ones that carry electric current across the country and the ones that bring the current to your homes. In fact, any electric current produces an EM field. The key difference between Electromagnetic field and Electromagnetic radiation are the amounts of energy (EM radiation has more) and the frequency (EM radiation uses higher frequencies, hence shorter wave lengths). This means that EM radiation can travel farther and so is more useful for applications such as TV, radio broadcasts and communications. "EM radiation results from the acceleration of electrical charges. EM radiation is thought of as waves propagated through space. In other words, as the frequency increases the field extends or radiates outwards from the source. When powered the frequency will extend further. EM radiation comes from a diverse range of sources, such as radio and television broadcast antennas, cellular phones, and computer terminals"1 EM radiation can cause heating, so unlike EM fields you must be alerted to possible thermal (heating) and non thermal (non heating) effects. EM radiation heating is not always immediately obvious to people who are exposed. "EM radiation can be focused in a beam in a way that EM fields cannot. These beams can be broad or narrow, depending on their purpose. Microwave signals used to send telephone calls across a series of relay stations generally are focused, as the signals are aimed from station to station. Cellular phones send their signals in all directions at once, since the phones do not know where the nearest receiver is."1 As you can see from the enclosed chart Microwave Radiation is in the upper frequency of non ionizing electromagnetic radiation. The CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 5 frequency of microwave radiation, which includes cellular phone transmissions, starts at around 800 Mega hertz (MHz), since 1 hertz equals 1 cycle / second this means 800 million cycles / second. Compare this to the levels of frequency of the electrical current in our homes from alternating current (AC) which reverses polarity 60 times per second (60 cycles) or 60 hertz. The frequency of the proposed cellular tower for Cross River New York is 880 Mega Hertz, 880 Million cycles per second. Generally these transmission and receiver sites are powered with 100 watts of energy. Exposure rate in the upper ranges of the electromagnetic frequencies are measured in W/cm2 (watts/squared centimeter). When physically exposed to a frequency the exposure rate is measured at a given distance. This measurement records the degree of exposure - measured in watts - in a space of a square centimeter of body exposure. This will determine the rate of exposure from a given source. 1 mW/cm2 = (1 milli watt) 1 thousandth of a watt/squared centimeter 1 puW/cm2 = (1 micro watt) 1 millionth of a watt/ squared centimeter 1 nW/cm2 = (1 nano watt) 1 billionth of a watt/squared centimeter The Question of Safe Exposure to Electromagnetic Frequencies "The explosive growth in our use of electrical power has occurred with few questions being asked about the safety of living things exposed to these abnormal fields. It was simply assumed that the laws of physics guaranteed that there could be no interaction between unseen fields and living things. When questions of safety arose, the questioner was placed in the position of seeming to be irrationally against progress. However, the reason that questions of safety arose was that despite the theories, biological effects were noticed." 2 Public concern and opposition is growing as the indications of health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation are CRB Design `' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 6 =MIIIM gaining attention. Information about numerous case studies and reports, such as Leukemia in groups of children in Denver, exposed to high levels of ELF from electrical transformers, to the W.W.II Radar technicians who have high incidence of chromosomal defects in their children, reinforce the public concern. The federal government has not funded major research to address the concerns and the problems associated with electromagnetic exposure. Case studies and research continue to pour in and the extent of "safe" exposure is in question. Growing concern about the effects of exposure to ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) electromagnetic fields and questions about the safety of higher -frequency non ionizing radiation, including VLF (Very Low Frequency) electromagnetic radiation and microwave radiation pose important questions about the safety levels of exposure. Microwave radiation, for instance, is generated by many sources, from police radar to long distance telephone equipment, home microwave ovens and many common sources around us. Additional concern about exposure to many other sources of non ionizing radiation, including radio waves and energy from broadcasting transmitters and towers, CB radios (27MHz) and radar dishes, may be warranted. Information currently available finds that the exposure to levels of electromagnetic frequency does cause added stress to the physical body. Exposure to electromagnetic frequency can further stress an already weakened system. "It is well established that exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. If the exposure is prolonged, the stress -response system becomes exhausted, and the competency of the immune system declines to below normal. In such a state, animals and humans are more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases. We are constantly exposed to cancer-causing agents in our environment, ranging from carcinogenic chemicals to cosmic rays. As a result, we are always developing small cancers that are recognized by our immune systems and destroyed. Any factor that increases the CRB Design r Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 7 growth rate of these small cancers gives them an advantage over the immune system, and as a result more people develop clinical cancers that require treatment." 2 Epidemiological data strongly suggests that EM fields play a role in cancer, but exactly what role and how large a role remain unknown. Numerous epidemiological studies have been done on EM field exposures. Although EM radiation exposures have not been as well studied, the research done that relates exposure to different levels of electromagnetic fields and radiation continues to indicate significant increases of disease. These include cancers of the reproductive system (all organs), the breast, childhood cancers, particularly leukemia, adult cancers, diseases of the central nervous system, as well as, higher incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - a type of cancer of the lymph nodes, found in engineers and technicians in the electric power industry with job related exposure. Additionally, exposure to electromagnetic field from electric blankets, heated waterbeds, electrically radiant heated floors and ceilings are associated with an increase of miscarriages and slow growing fetuses. An October 26, 1992 issue of Time Magazine reported about Swedish research on EMFs: "... it shows an unmistakable correlation between the degree of exposure and the risk of childhood leukemia. What makes the Karolinska study particularly significant is the thoroughness of its design. The investigation encompassed nearly 500,000 people. One of the most telling results was that the cancer risk grew in proportion to the strength of the Electro -magnetic field..." Public awareness of the reported increase in miscarriages and fetal malformations among women using computers, or video display terminals (VDTs), spurred a series of studies in the 1980s. These studies determined that the exposure to EM radiation caused both miscarriages and birth defects. Although the controversy is still "hot" regarding the effects of EM exposure, the computer industry has responded to consumer concerns and is gradually developing "Lower" emission monitors and protection systems. CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 8 Unfortunately when dealing with frequency levels and transmissions from towers we are not so easily able to protect ourselves from potentially harmful emissions. As with the concern of electromagnetic frequencies in the lower bands of the non ionizing electromagnetic energy spectrum there is also great concern regarding the effects of the upper non ionizing electromagnetic frequencies, including the microwave range. Laboratory evidence clearly indicates that EM fields and non thermal EM radiation can cause biological changes at the cellular level and can affect the ways that cells communicate and interact a t the most basic level. The data on EM radiation are far more limited than that on EM fields but are cause for concern. "From an epidemiological perspective, EM fields are much easier to study than EM radiation for two reasons: First, EM fields involve just one frequency (60 hertz) or, at the most, a very small range of frequencies from one type of source (the flow of electric current); while EM radiation involves millions of frequencies from a wide range of sources. Second, it is much easier to find a large group of people regularly exposed to EM fields (from power lines, for example) than to identify a large group regularly exposed to a single type of EM radiation." 1 EM Radiation is different in a number of ways from EM fields. It contains more energy, and operates with shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) and higher power. These characteristics give it the ability to penetrate the human body and to interact with molecules in unique ways. Microwave frequencies (those used for cellular phones) have a wavelength of about one inch, while EM fields have wavelengths of about 3,100 miles. Scientific data indicate that the wavelengths of microwave radiation may be small enough to have a resonant effect on DNA and chromosomes. Research has shown that in the upper ranges of the microwave frequency there is a significant thermal (heating) effect. For instance, microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2450 MHz. Since before the 1950's concern was with direct heating effects of microwave exposure. More recent studies are indicating significant effects of CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 9 non heat producing (non thermal) levels of microwave radiation. These studies show interference with the formation of living cells. "The scientific data at this time indicates that microwaves have major biological effects at power levels far below those required to cause heating. The majority of these effects are productive of various disease states, primarily cancer and genetic defects in those exposed and in their unexposed offspring. These diseases are not strange new types unique to microwave exposure; they are instead our old, familiar enemies. The hazard comes from the fact that exposure to microwaves, like exposure to any abnormal electro -magnetic field, produces stress, a decline in the immune -system competency, and changes in the genetic apparatus." 2 Doctors HD Brown and SK Chattopadhyay of the Department of Biochemistry at Rutgers University, after surveying the entire literature on the relationship between all electromagnetic fields and cancer, concluded that "animal carcinogenesis studies and human epidemiological data indicate that exposure to non ionizing radiation can play a role in cancer causation. Laboratory data clearly indicate a direct relationship between both ELF and microwave fields and cancer. Taken as a whole, the epidemiological data clearly indicate a direct causal relationship. An article in the November/ December 1994 issue of the Microwave News - a trade journal - reported that "Low-level microwave radiation can cause DNA breaks in the brains of experimental animals, according to studies carried out in the US and in India. The new results, which have attracted a lot of interest within the cellular phone industry, suggest that microwave could act as a cancer- causing agent." Public concern is putting more pressure on the questions of safety as allegations and lawsuits are making the headlines. Cases of EM radiation effects are showing up all over the world; some are given media attention. Many of the cases in the media are lawsuits and allegations, such as Susan Reynard in Pinellas County, Florida who first developed visual impairment and then was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died in late May 1992, allegedly as a result of CRS Design V Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 10 exposure to high levels of non ionizing radiation from using a cellular phone. Her family is now suing NEC America Inc. and GTE Mobilenet of Tampa Inc. Lawsuits and allegations are more common than ever before as the public becomes aware of the potential causes and effects of electromagnetic exposures. Police officers have sued radar manufacturers claiming that exposures from the radar devices caused them to develop cancer, technicians who are exposed while working on satellite dishes, suffered visual damage, have made claims. Radar technicians in the US Navy and other cases involving radio, cellular and television broadcast emissions are in the media spotlight. Recent studies have shown a link between microwave exposure and brain tumors as well as increased cancer of the glandular system. "I do believe that there is a potential relationship between exposure to fields of this type and cancer promotion" declares Dr. Stephen Cleary of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Dr. Cleary has shown that brain tumor cells exposed to radio frequency and microwave radiation proliferate at an abnormally high rate. In his experiments, the abnormal growth continued for five days after exposure. According to his 1990 paper he claims that such findings "...suggest the possibility of cumulative effects". Although Cleary did not investigate cellular phone frequencies (800-900 MHz), he studied 27 MHz and 2450 MHz; he predicted radiation at cellular frequencies would cause similar effects. An early study funded in the 1980's by the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine at the University of Washington, under the direction of Dr. Bill Guy found that rats continuously exposed to high frequency microwaves of 2450 MHz at approximately 0.5mW/cm2, twenty times lower than the "safe" thermal level of 10mW/cm2, resulted in a cancer rate in the exposed rats of four times higher than in the rats unexposed. This was quite remarkable since the rats chosen for the experiment were germ and virus free and chosen for their resistance to cancer causing agents. These cancers that resulted from exposure were primarily cancers of the pituitary, CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 11 thyroid and adrenal glands, as well as a significant number of benign tumors of the adrenal glands. Few studies have been done at cellular phone frequencies (800-900 MHz). But there is a growing body of work which indicates that various types of radio frequency and microwave radiation can contribute to the development of cancer. Laboratory, animal and human studies all point to a possible problem. The work of Dr. Cleary and Dr. Guy supports a cancer risk. Of the study completed by Dr. Guy, the Environmental Protection Agency found that "the University of Washington study can be said to have demonstrated the carcinogenic action of this type of RF radiation." Other studies by Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski of the Center for Radiobiology and Radiation Safety in Warsaw, Poland, found that radiowave and microwave radiation can act as a tumor promoter in mice. Dr. Samual Milham JR. an epidemiologist formerly with the Washington State Department of Health, has reported that amateur radio operators who are exposed to various sources of non ionizing radiation have higher than expected rates of cancer. Milham found an excess of acute myeloid leukemia as well as an excess of brain tumors. A series of studies carried out at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD by Henry Kues and coworkers indicate that RF/MW radiation can have profound effects on the eye. In addition to research and studies which find a high incidence of cancers, studies of microwave radiation have shown that exposure of dose rates below those which cause heating effects can; decrease sperm production, cause significantly abnormal changes in the structure of the chromosomes of the sperm, significantly increase fetal loss and children born with developmental defects caused by chromosomal changes in the germinative cells or the fetus. Additionally, there has been research linking children born with Down's Syndrome to fathers who were exposed to microwave radiation. "Over the past few years, Vernon, New Jersey, a little town of about 25,000 in the northern part of the state, has become front page news. On the basis of the number of microwave transmitters, Vernon ranks CRB Design ` ' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 12 fifth in the nation, behind New York, Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco. The incidence of Down's Syndrome cases in Vernon is nearly 1000 percent above the national average. A possible explanation for the production of genetic effects by microwaves is that the wavelengths of the microwave radiation may be small enough to have a resonant effect on the DNA molecule of the chromosomes." 2 Lower levels of emission exposure are showing evidence of sleeplessness, lack of sexual libido, headaches, irritability, short term memory loss, visual impairment and other symptoms. Additionally, disruptions resulting from EM interference have been linked to malfunctions of pacemakers, electronic wheelchairs, respirators, incubators, heart monitors, other hospital equipment and television reception. A wide variety of illnesses and symptoms are associated with exposure to microwave radiation including direct association to the frequencies which include the 800-900 MHz frequency of cellular tower transmissions. Although there seems to be a lack of studies done in this area of emissions exposure the indications are that frequent exposure to these levels of microwave radiation could certainly have dangerous health effects on ourselves, our families and our communities. Policies The American financial community has invested tremendous capital in the commitment to microwave technology. This unfortunately has made research into the biological effects of microwaves a sensitive and highly political issue. These investments have been made long before the question of safe levels of human exposure were considered. While still officially listed as inconclusive, evidence is certainly pointing to the need for stringent regulations of microwave technology. CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 13 While scientists are accumulating data, the policy makers, including elected officials, appointed regulators and judges are being forced to implement policy decisions on the basis of the incomplete data that we have. As early as 1971, a report from the White House Office of Telecommunication Policies Council (OTPC) warned that "Radiation emanating from radar, television, communications systems, and microwave ovens ...permeates the modern environment. In the decades ahead, man may enter an era of energy pollution of the environment comparable to the chemical pollution of today." "A handful of states have adopted EM field and EM radiation policies. State and Municipal activity is sure to increase at least until the federal government sets pre emptive policies. In addition to the myriad legislative, regulatory, legal and voluntary activities, scores of state and local legislatures are weighing exposure limits of various sorts. The number of lawsuits is rising steadily, fueled by the steady pace of new research results and increasing awareness among lawyers that this issue is not going away. Unless and until we accumulate a much more thorough understanding of EM fields and EM radiation and their effects on our health, the patchwork of policy initiatives and court rulings will grow, becoming even more of a problem for the delivery of electricity and information, and continuing to cost all of us who consume these two commodities more and more money, and perhaps our health." 1 In the earlier developments of higher frequency radiation the military community was most directly exposed to the then higher levels of frequency in the 27 MHz range, far below what is currently available. The 27 MHz frequency is now used for CB radio. Technicians and workers in the late 1920's had discovered adverse responses to exposures of 27 MHz radiowaves. During WW II, with the development of radar, operating personnel noted symptoms of body heating, similar to the technicians and workers exposed to 27MHz radio transmissions. At this time the assumption was that "heating" (thermal) effects would be the only area of concern. Unfortunately this is still the policy today regardless of the CRB Design `' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 14 tremendous evidence indicating that non thermal (non heating) exposure causes a myriad of problems. In the 1940's studies done at the State University of Iowa found that animals exposed to microwave radiation developed cataracts through non thermal effects. These results also indicated that there could be latent effects of microwave exposure. In the early 1950s, the military developed safety standards based on exposure to thermal microwave; "On the basis of theoretical calculations, it was postulated that microwave exposure at a dose of 100 milliwatts of power to an area of 1 square centimeter of body surface would exceed the ability of the blood circulation to carry away the heat produced, and local tissue heating would occur." "In 1957, after applying a safety factor of ten, the military adopted a standard for exposure to microwaves of 10 milliwatts per square centimeter (10 mW/cm2). In 1966, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accepted the same standard for recommended civilian occupational exposure. The 10mW /cm2 standard became 'graven in stone', and for a long time the establishment resisted any efforts to dispute it. Researchers who reported hazardous bioeffects with microwave exposures at levels below this standard were ignored or ridiculed, and their research funds were withdrawn. Nevertheless, the controversy continued, with many independent scientists insisting that exposure to non thermal levels of microwave produced major biological effects. In 1982, while the Guy study was going on, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) reviewed the original (1966) 10mW/cm2 standard and revised it in light of 'new' knowledge. ... ANSI adopted a new standard that was frequency dependent but was still based on the thermal - effects concept alone. As a result, the recommended safe levels for exposure to FM were reduced sharply, the microwave -exposure levels were slightly reduced, and exposure levels for frequencies below the FM band were raised significantly on the basis that the longer the wavelength, the lower the possibility of any biological effect. While Guy's data disproved the idea that only thermal effects were possible, that concept still prevails at this CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 15 time, and all levels recommended as safe are based on the theoretical production of heat in the exposed body."2 The 1992 revised ANSI standards recommend frequency -dependent exposure limits. For instance, the current ANSI exposure standard (C95.1) limits exposure to 2,890 µW/cm2 (microwatts per square centimeter). The most stringent exposure standards are of the National Council on Radiation Protection and measurements (NCRP) limits exposure to 579 MW/cm2. The typical public exposure near a cellular transmission facility at the point of public access is on the order of 10 µW/cm2, as reported in a Cellular Industry generated report. The Sarasota ECO Report of December 1993 reported that the EPA estimates that the microwave sources of radiation are increasing 15 percent annually. A recent survey shows that in 11 major US cities, 98% of the population is already exposed to one microwatt per square centimeter (1 µW/cm2), the level the Russians indicate that behavioral changes will occur. Based on the level of radiation that induces behavioral changes in animals, the former Soviet Union and many Eastern European countries have a microwave standard of 1- microwatt (1/1,000,000 of a watt) per centimeter squared (11,1W/cm2). The symptoms induced at levels higher than 1µW /cm2 include irritability, fatigue, loss of sexual appetite, headaches and other debilitating effects. An article in the Microwave News reports that Female Emergency medical Services technicians are concerned with the reports of increased gynecological problems in EMS workers exposed to 800 MHz radio transmitters. At 10 cm from the antenna the radios produced power densities of approximately 2mW/cm2. These systems operate at 800-900 MHz with a 3 watt maximum output power. Compared to the Cellular towers which run at 800-900 MHz at approximately 100 Watts power. Researchers in Switzerland studied the effects of radio frequency exposure in a group of people living near a transmitter site with RF emissions in the town of Bern. The 215 villagers who lived within 900 meters of the transmitters were exposed to an average of 1.4µW /cm2 CRB Design ie Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 16 (u =1 millionth), with a minimum of 21 nW/cm2 (n= 1 billionth) and a maximum of 164 pW/cm2. The villagers living close to the towers reported more subjective health complaints than those living over 4 km away. The complaints from those who lived near the facility were similar to those reported by workers exposed to RF and microwave radiation on the job. For instance in their classic 1976 text, Biological Effects of Microwaves, Drs. Stanislaw Baranski and Przemyslaw Czerski wrote: "the chronic overexposure syndrome is characterized by subjective complaints consisting of headaches, irritability, sleep disturbances, weakness, decrease of sexual activity (libido), pains in the chest and general ill- defined feeling of ill -being." A further study is in progress monitoring the longer term effects of exposure in those living near the sites and more than 4 km away. These examples of case studies indicate the need to question the recommended ANSI rates of exposure. "Non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation from radar, television, transmitters, communication systems, microwave ovens, industrial heat treatment systems, medical diathermy units and many other sources permeate the modern environment. There is increasing anxiety that even at relatively low power densities, these radiations can affect biological organisms adversely. Since 1940 the growth in radiation sources has been phenomenal, and is continuing at an accelerated rate." This was issued by a White House advisory committee, ERMAC - Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council, in December 1971. The statement from ERMAC over 20 years ago gives warning regarding the potential health hazards of EM radiation which called for research programs addressing the public safety in a national research program on RF radiation risks. The research was never done and 20 years later our wireless revolution has permeated the environment with cellular phones, computers, vast radar systems, microwave ovens and satellite uplinks. A January/ February 1994 report in the Microwave News states that the Environmental Protection Agency has come out strongly against the federal Communications Commission's proposal to adopt the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard on RF/MW exposure, contending that the standard has "serious flaws" and questions whether it is CRB Design '4 Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 17 "sufficiently protective of public health and safety." In comments filed on November 9, 1993, in response to a request made in April 1993 by the FCC, EPA criticizes, in particular, the standard's different limits for "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments and the failure to consider non thermal effects. Public concern has grown and the EPA is being pressed to set standards. The EPA is under pressure to adopt the ANSI RF/MW guidelines. A member of the ERMAC has said "The problem is that we are dealing with something we don't know much about. The real issue is not whether EPA should set a standard, but whether EPA will produce the research that will allow for a standard." The EPA has never endorsed the ANSI standard over the last 20 years. Marty Halper, director of the EPA's radiation studies division, banned his staff from taking part in the most recent revision. "The group (ANSI) did not deal with all the data - specifically the non thermal effects" Representatives from the EPA and ERMAC point out the gaps in the studies and data used to determine the ANSI standard. Even the US military are finding fault with these standards. Questions of whether RF and microwave can affect cancer, pregnancy, vision, and behavior are left unresolved. With many of these questions left unresolved, the lack of federal policies and the growing evidence of health problems associated with the exposure to EM radiation and microwave emissions we must individually make choices that send messages of concern and declarations of our commitment to the health of our communities by questioning the policies of companies with financial investments in the outcome and demand that our communities be safe from potential harm. For each community if one child or adult is in some way affect by or limited in their health by the presence of microwave cellular emission, then in my opinion the cost is far to high. CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 18 What Other Towns Are Doing The headlines in the Microwave News read: "San Francisco Bans Cellular Antennas on School Property" "Controversy over a proposal to put a low-power radio transmitter atop a public high school in San Francisco has prompted the city's school board to prohibit new mobile communications antennas on school property. The San Francisco Unified School District has also decided against renewing existing leases for four cellular antennas already on city schools." In dozens of communities across the country, citizens concerned about health hazards are challenging plans for new cellular phone transmission sites and where they are to be built on or near; schools, community grounds, public developments or residential areas. Here are a few examples. The Los Gatos (CA) Union School District signed a contract in January 1992 with GTE Mobilnet to erect a 35 - foot tower in a utility yard at the Fisher Middle School. Local activists opposed the company when it sought approval from the planning commission. By July of 1993 the planning commission denied the use permit GTE Mobilenet had sought based on the environmental impact report submitted to the town for approval. In October the town council turned down the company's appeal. In the small town of Merton, WI midway between Milwaukee and Madison, two cellular installations were proposed. One was Ameritech's plans for a 152 -foot cellular tower on a high school football field and the other was Cellular One's proposed 250 -foot tower on the Cull farm. Although the Arrowhead High School board approved the plans, the Merton planning commission voted against it as well as against the tower at the Cull farm in July 1993. These projects were unanimously defeated for reasons based on several concerns by the commission: "• They are inappropriate for a residential neighborhood • They will not be aesthetically pleasing • They will affect the value of properties in the neighborhood • The presence of the tower and use may create a health hazard and could pose uncertain health risks in the future." CRB Design ` ' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 19 In Sarasota Florida. opponents of a Cellular One tower to be sited near an Elementary School have won the first round, although the company still hopes to gain approval. Because of opposition from the community and parents the principal of Southside Elementary, John Spielman, wrote in a November 29 letter, citing a "divisive" atmosphere and had "ceased negotiations". School officials in Moreland Hills, OH approved the request by Cellular One to place a transmitter on the grounds of the local elementary school. Unable to gain community support for the project the issue remained unresolved until recently, when the town council passed a non binding resolution stating that no application for the siting of a cellular transmitter in Moreland Hills should be considered by the council. "Court Blocks Cellular Transmission Tower" read the local headlines ... Opponents of a proposed 300 -foot tower near Butler township, PA are expressing confidence that they can stop the project. A Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court judge ruled in their favor on May 26, 1992 denying a request by Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems Inc. to reverse a decision by the Butler Township Board of Commissioners, which rejected the company's application for a development permit last January. When plans by a NYNEX Mobile Communications Co. to site a transmitter in Lincoln Park, NJ, were rejected by the town council, it was the company's second defeat on the same project. Nearby Boonton worked successfully to force the company to withdraw plans for a tower there. The company then approached Lincoln Park, where the antenna was to go on a water tower "located smack in the middle of a children's playground" and in the immediate vicinity of an elementary school. Although NYNEX had signed a lease with Lincoln Park in Dec. of 1992 the opposition grew while the company sought approvals before the city's Board of Adjustment, and the delays there allowed the town a way out. The contract gave either party an option to end the lease if necessary approvals were not received by July 1, 1993. At a meeting in early July, the town council voted unanimously to do just that. NYNEX sued the town, but on CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 20 October 11, 1993 Morris County Superior Court Judge Reginald Stanton ruled in favor of the town council. Having failed twice, NYNEX "is going to start closing the loopholes" in its contracts, predicted the attorney who represented the opponents. With tens of thousands of similar transmitters in use in the United States, an unknown number of them on or near school property, the issue is likely to receive increasing attention. Regulatory challenges of plans to site cellular towers and other EM radiation sources on a variety of private and public lands are increasingly common. At least two cities - Portland OR and Seattle WA - have standards in place to control EM radiation exposures. The headlines these days are filled with communities fighting the proposed placement of cellular towers in their towns near schools and in residential areas. Each of these is a statement to community and federal policy makers that the public will not permit potential harm and loss of property values in their community. Property Values Often communities are concerned with the question of diminished land values as a result of the presence of cellular and microwave towers. In regards to high voltage power lines and transmission towers the courts have, in the past, ordered companies to compensate property owners for their lost property value. Property owners have had limited success in these cases, though many Realtors believe that EM field and EM radiation concerns are affecting sales. A 1992 cover article in Real Estate Today magazine warns of these concerns. Lawsuits are surfacing which allow property owners to sue for lost property value because they believe their property values are hurt by the fear of EM fields and radiation, regardless of whether the scientific evidence provides cause for that fear. Much of this focus has been involving major electrical transmission lines, but currently the concern of EM radiation from cellular towers, RF transmitters, etc. are impacting the real estate market. CRS Design '' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 21 Protecting Yourself and Your Family The cellular tower proposed by NYNEX on private land in Cross River, New York is located approximately: 175 yards from several residences 175 yards from the school athletic track 530 yards from the middle school 700 yards from the high school 175 yards from the shopping center 530 - 700 yards from a large residential area Without governmental policies and community regulations, it is up to us as individuals to make choices to protect ourselves, our families and our communities from possible harmful effects from exposure to microwave and cellular transmissions. People are finding that on a grass roots level they are able to make choices to protect themselves and their families. Individuals and communities are making decisions on their own without much support from governmental policy makers. You must decide what is best for you and your family. "Until we know more, as with EM fields, the experts recommend you keep your exposures to the lowest possible levels. The first rule is, of course, to keep your distance. Do not work, rest, or play any closer to EM radiation sources than you have to." 1 Because EM radiation comprises so many frequencies and so many variations, and because the research is incomplete, you will rarely be able to directly match a specific exposure to a scientific finding. But while the jury is still out (and it likely will be for some time to come), there are prudent measures you can take to safeguard yourself and your family. Throughout your day, common devices expose you to EM radiation - almost always at low non thermal levels. Most of these sources produce useful, often necessary, signals. You cannot avoid them, but you can make yourself aware of them and find ways to reduce your exposures. CRS Design '' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 22 The following is a list of many sources of EM fields and radiation, although it is far from complete it can give you an idea of areas of possible exposure. Local radio networks Microwave transmitters Radio and TV broadcasts RF fluorescent light ballasts Satellite uplinks Toll systems Pagers Computers Medical equipment Police radar Airport radar RF sealers Televisions Telephones Computer terminals Walkie-Talkies Local Area Networks (LAN) Modems Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) Security systems Baby monitors CB radios Cellular phones Cordless phones Garage door openers Microwave ovens Automatic door openers Digital watches All electronic devices emit low levels of EM radiation - radios, telephone answering machines, televisions, computers and so on. Although the Federal Communications Commission limits these emissions, each consumer should be wary and measure the rate of emissions from these products to assure safety in your homes and offices. Our homes, offices and schools are running with electrical currents 24 hours a day. It is important to measure the exposure to ELF fields inside and outside these common areas in order to ensure a safe environment. Measurements can be made by a qualified technician familiar with the procedures of EMF detection or you can purchase an EM meter to test your own homes, work place and appliances. It is imperative to eliminate exposure to frequencies from microwave and radiowave transmissions around our homes, community parks, residential areas, shopping centers, offices and schools. We must take responsibility for the health and well-being of our families and community. CRB Design Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 23 Footnotes: 1) The EMF Book - by Mark A Pinsky - Published by Warner Books, Inc. in 1995 2) Cross Currents - by Robert 0. Becker - Published by Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. in 1990 Much of the information in this report was gathered from industry newsletters, magazine articles, research papers, studies, newspaper clippings and books covering the topic of microwave radiation. CRB Design W Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 24 BOOKS on ELECTRO -MAGNETIC & MICROWAVE RADIATION • The EMF Book by Mark A. Pinsky • Cross Currents - by Robert O. Becker • The Health Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation - by Robert O. Becker • Currents of Death - by Paul Brodeur • The Zapping of America - by Paul Brodeur • Power Over People -by Louise B. Young • Warning: The Electricity Around You May be Hazardous to your health - by Ellen Sugarman PUBLICATIONS on ELECTRO -MAGNETIC & MICROWAVE RADIATION • Microwave News - (212) 517-2800 • VDT News - (212) 517-2800 • EMF -EMI Control - (804) 493-0700 • EMF Health Report - (215) 732-9083 CRB Design '' Healthy Homes P.O. Box 113 Carbondale, CO. 81623 (303) 963-0437 25