Loading...
2013-1086-Minutes for Meeting June 13,2013 Recorded 7/29/2013DESCHTES COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,P000NTY CLERKDS CJ x013'1086 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/29/1013 10:39:37 QM 111111111 IiIIIIIIIIII 11 111111 III 2013- Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013 Alfalfa Community Hall The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing on the appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial of a conditional use permit application for a 100 foot high telecommunications facility, and associated ground equipment on a five-acre lot in the Rural Residential (RR-10) zone, in the Alfalfa area. Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately 30 other citizens, including Richard Bush and Mark Shipman, for the applicant. Chair Unger opened the hearing at 6:15 p.m. Chair Unger opened the hearing and asked that those providing testimony try to keep their statements brief, in view of the fact that about twenty citizens wish to speak, in addition to the applicant. He read an opening statement at this time (a copy of which is attached for reference). The Commissioners had no ex parte contacts, pre-hearing observations, bias or conflicts of interest to disclose. Commissioner Baney said she attended a local fire district meeting and this issue came up briefly. Commissioner DeBone said he knows some of the people living in this area and has looked at the site. There were no challenges to the Board as to ex parte or pre-hearing contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 1 of 17 Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the application and appeal. (A copy of a staff memo is attached for reference) A letter was received on June 13, 2013 from the applicant's attorney offering a waiver of the time limit (a copy of the letter is attached). In regard to siting a tower where there is no topographic or vegetative features to allow for screening, he said this is contained in two places in Code. Legislative history of cell tower placement was written by a planner at the time, and he stated in an October 22, 1999 memo, the goals were to develop a tiered system of review and to minimize any visual impacts. Commissioner Baney feels this is an important conversation, and the Board doesn't hear much from Alfalfa. It matters a great deal that this is taking place since it is an important issue for the community. Richard Bush, representing AT&T, asked that staff's comments just made be part of the record. He will start with bold statements. He thinks these things are going to catch on (meaning cell phones). The cell phone market has an 80% penetration rate, and about 20% of people are using only cell phones and have no land line. People want to use cell phones where the live, work, play, commute and travel. A telecommunications law makes it a priority to bring wireless broadband in, so they can remain more competitive. In order for the phones to work, there need to be antennas. Satellite coverage is not reliable. The antennas or shroud must be visible to work. They have to be high enough to clear the clutter. They are attempting to bring new coverage to the Alfalfa area and beyond. There are gaps in coverage at this time. There are several sets of laws that cover this. County Code is one, as is State law regarding EFU land. Carriers are prohibited from installing antennas on resource land if there is non-resource land available. All of the land around the search area is zoned EFU. Federal laws, primarily the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Court of Appeals cases interpreted that if there is a significant gap in coverage, and if an applicant finds the least intrusive location to site a tower, the application is to be approved. This application fits those criteria. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 2 of 17 He noted that Karen Sullivan, a radio frequency engineer, submitted a report on this issue. They looked at several sites. Any of the sites would work, although some are preferred. Any of the five sites would work and are acceptable. The question is then, which is the least intrusive. They have evaluated sites along the power lines, but they have to use a separate structure. One of the exhibits, #2, a topographical map, identifies the five sites in question. The elevation change is not significant for these sites. No matter which you choose, a 100 ft. tower will be visible to the local area. So they needed to determine how many homes are affected. Mark Shipman, for the applicant, AmeriTower Corporation, said he would speak about the alternative site analysis. Site 1 is the Division of State Lands property. The subject property is the preferred site, which is near Alfalfa Market Road, because the power lines are shorter, around 45-50 feet in height; compared to those on Elk Lane. At the north end are Site #1 and Site #2. To the south is Site #3. They are all on State lands. It has been said that they did not look at them. They are zoned RR-10 and conceivably are available. There are not many instances where DSL has land that can be developed. They know the highest and best use is not having the land sit there. The State requires a process similar to the Deschutes County application process. It is a 6 to 8 week process or more with the State; notice is required and comments invited. The consensus of the community is that they don't want the tower at all. He fears that if they go through that additional State process as well, they may be declined. Phase 2 is a leasing system, also not guaranteed by the State. The State typically limits duration of leases on their land. The desired subject property allows for a long-term lease. Regarding Site #1, the photographs identify what the site candidate wants, with photos of the view, power lines and more. There are views to the east. On page 2 of the photos, they mocked up what the tower would look like. It is well above the juniper trees. The effect is similar in the surrounding area. Site #2 is the State lands site. The photographs are similar, and they mocked up the tower and views; there are lesser views than elsewhere. Minutes of Public Hearing Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 3 of 17 Site #3 is on the south end of the DSL property. The photographs are similar; they did not include a mock up on this one. He already talked about the preferred site on Alfalfa Market Road. There is Site #5, located near Todd Road and Elk Lane. It was rejected because it is surrounded by over 16 homes. There are juniper trees, but a lot more homes. The preferred site is less intrusive on the community. He included a propagation map, and identified the State sites and a slide with respect to the three sites: alternative, other 1 (State #1), other 2 (State #2) and other 3, the third State site on the south end of the DSL property. They looked at the additional three alternative sites, and there are four houses in the area - three built and one with just a barn. A house has not been erected, but it is anticipated that the owners will build. Moving north to the State sites, they included alternative sites (State #1), and there are three homes less than 300 feet away. Looking at the other exhibit with respect to alternative Site #3, there are houses from 600 to 900 feet away. Regarding alternative Site #4, there are more than 16 homes surrounding that area that would be in view of the tower. He talked about the legal argument in regard to screening. They were told by the Hearings Officer that they did not provide adequate screening. This is a case of first impressions. He referred to staff's handout with the two references (attached). Testimony in the past indicates they cannot co-locate. The closest co- location ability is five miles away. Code states that they must provide co-location potential. In their mind, they have satisfied (b)2. However, b(5) is more challenging. The way to look at this is that a "shall" means in all cases, to the maximum extent practicable. Subparagraph 4 is similar to subparagraph 5. A tower monopole in a landscape management zone allows for no more than 30 feet in height. The Hearings Officer said there were five segments. Mr. Shipman feels there are really three. It is not within the LM (landscape management) zone, so this criterion does not apply. He thinks the Hearings Officer is misinterpreting Code - interpreting one way for LM and one way for protected roadways. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 4 of 17 The applicant feels the proposed site is suitable for a tower and is compatible. The visual impact is there in any case. .Even if the DSL site were available, the preferred site provides for better coverage. The further north you go, the more coverage you lose. However, the DSL site is not considered available. They are supposed to use topography to the maximum extent practicable. Alfalfa Market Road is not a protected roadway. Even looking at it more broadly, Code does not say you have to screen a tower from all visual effects. People are not entitled to a 360-degree protected view. The applicants feel they have fulfilled the requirements and this should be approved. If the Board thinks additional screening is necessary, they will do that. If the Board decides that the proposed structure is too intrusive and feels that a mono-pine is preferred, they would comply as a condition of approval. Commissioner Baney asked how it works with EFU, public lands and private lands. If it does not meet the existing preferred site, and if there is another site that will work, what opens EFU at that point. Mr. Blikstad said that if there is no viable location in the RR-10 zone, they could look at EFU. Commissioner Baney asked if a power line can be considered for placement of an antenna. Mr Shipman said in this case their engineers identified the power poles as being too low. Mr. Shipman stated that he submitted a supplemental letter on May 18 which was rejected as not being timely. He submitted the letter into the record at this time. Bruce White, representing the opponents, Larry and Deborah White and Linda Armenta, said that these idividuals are the residents closest to the preferred site. He asked that the record be held open so that there is adequate time to review any new testimony. He provided a notebook with a cover letter and attachments. He said he did not submit prior testimony, but referenced it in footnotes for the Board to review. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 5 of 17 The applicants asked for a de novo hearing so they can bring in new evidence. The only people speaking tonight for the applicant are lawyers. He said that it seems that this hearing was set far enough in advance so the applicants could be part of the record. He asked why the Board is being deprived of asking them questions, as are the opponents. The purpose of a de novo hearing is to bring in new facts. He was referring to the engineer and Mr. Michaelis, who is the applicant's agent, who found this site and the alternative sites. He spoke about applicant credibility, which is important in technical situations like this. The applicant controls the data and the experts. In his attachment B, he said their credibility is suspect. There is supposed to be a meaningful analysis and identification of alternative sites. There was a neighborhood meeting and they said the one site is preferred, but did not contact DSL for six months afterwards. This casts a pall on the whole process. The process ends up being a defense for a site that they already chose and not a true analysis of the alternatives. The search ring has a big bearing in this case. They say they had to make it small due to the EFU land. There is a whole lot of RR-10 in the area. They could have left out the EFU and had a bigger search ring; or noted that some of the land is EFU and they cannot use it. To their credit, they have backtracked and said there are some alternative sites that work to some degree. Attachment D analyzes the search rings of the past. There are 2.5 miles to 4 miles included. The process should not picking a site and trying to justify it. With regard to serving Highway 20, one of the objectives, he asked how much service Highway 20 gets. It would be minimal, and he wonders how much it would help. When you look at the sites that AT&T has applied for to serve, primarily the highway sites, the cell towers typically are located very close to the highways. If they want greater coverage on Highway 20, they need to site it more to the south. That would be much better than those in Alfalfa. The applicants control the data and can also manipulate the data to get the result they want. The lawyers did not participate in the early process; it was the consultant who is not here tonight. They are trying to back their analysis into this site. Minutes of Public Hearing Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 6 of 17 He can't tell from what the applicant submitted where the sites are located. He does not know if they selected them. The DSL site looks like it is on top of the ridge, not on the toe like was suggested. It would have provided more screening. It would have helped to have maps with parcel lines. He suggested that they put a tower on top of one of the transmission lines. They are saying that those are not adequate because they are not tall enough. They could put a tower on top of them to make the necessary height. There is a tower on top of a BPA line in Redmond. It is not clear whether this is not available. The power company may want to do this and gain some revenue. When they look at the impacts of alternative sites, it is simplistic to just count houses. It does not take into account whether there is a view or vegetation, or transmissions lines that already mar the view. It may be time-consuming, but they are talking about putting up a tower that will be there for years. He feels they will find that with the letter and information he provided in November, there is a marked difference between the flat, treeless site they chose and the sites near Elk Lane where there is extensive tree coverage. There is a lot of tree coverage in most places, but this particular site is exposed. For them to say that they will count homes and measure the impact that way, has nothing to do with the actual quality of the view from those homes. They did not groundtruth it in that way. He feels that any property along Elk Lane, if there is a view through the trees, will end up with a view of transmission lines. It would be less visually intrusive if there is already an impairment. There is another feature blocking the site. His clients have a view of Horse Ridge. The houses east of the DSL land do not have a view of the Cascades. That kind of detailed analysis simply has not been done. There needs to be groundtruthing. He did provide some analysis in his submittal. The applicants have not carried their burden in this situation. They should have done this from the beginning. If this site is denied, the applicant has to come back and do another analysis. There may be some people who don't like it then, either. If they did the proper search from the beginning, this might have been a shorter process. In Sisters this was done in three tries. They could take a lesson from that. Doing the work up front helps a lot. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 7 of 17 In respect to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the applicant says that the Hearings Officer violated that in regard to siting. However, an analysis of the alternatives was lacking. The Hearings Officer got it right. There is no basis to go to federal court if the Board denies this due to the lack of adequate analysis. They also talked about wanting to mitigate at the site. They talked about the ridge at the north end of the property being mitigation. It is 900 feet away and does not help his client. When talking about planting trees, in a December 21, 2012 letter, professional plant people have advised that these are trees that won't grow or would take decades to provide any relief. The applicant seems to believe if they check the boxes they'll get there, but has not been meaningful. They need to be held to a higher standard. They talk about the DSL land as being unavailable, but they have not provided a letter to that extent. They have some of these on some of the properties elsewhere. The fact that it may not be as long as the cell tower folks like has not stopped them from getting leases on other sites. There are sites outside Burns on DSL land. They say that it is rare for the DSL to have RR-10 land. These would be ten-acre lots and there is already a transmission line across that land. They could site on the line or near it without it disrupting the developability of that land. There is a process with the DSL, but it has taken a long time in this proceeding. It should not be an impediment. It is something they haven't tried. He addressed the criteria at issue. The Hearings Officer got it right. The last sentence is a command, that there has to be screening available. The applicant said they would rely on some screening on the site, but it is 900 feet to the north. He does not think that screening is meant to be remote. He feels the Hearings Officer gave a reasonable reading. With respect to power poles along Alfalfa Market Road, the applicant feels this is reasonable. They are only 34 feet tall and they don't break the tree line like this tower will, or the transmission lines along Elk Lane. He addressed briefly the antenna array, which is a horizontal series that is visually intrusive, as opposed to having more flat sited ones that lie close to the tower. This is one the Board needs to look at under the conditional use criteria. He disagrees with the Hearings Officer on this as a visual impact. He has argued that before the Hearings Officer. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 8 of 17 He spoke about the alternatives analysis, and set that out in his attachment F. The Board needs to insist on a vigorous study of alternatives, not a small search ring or an area that is not effectively served under any alternative. That has not happened here. There are sites that are less intrusive, with more vegetation. The fact that there are no trees tall enough to hide this completely is true of any cell tower, but there would be some degree of this if there were trees. He said that he wants to submit written documentation for the record after tonight. Wayne Morgan testified. Chair Unger asked how close he is to the site. He said he is on irrigated land at 62600 Dodds Road. Mr. Morgan brought up something that has not been said yet. In the early 1970's when zoning took place, he was in Oregon. They lived in Coos County then and were told to get involved or not, and if not, the land will be zoned however was wanted. This got him involved. They were trying to preserve agricultural ground and rural communities and a way of life. They talked about creating rural service centers in those locations. They did not want the sprawl of a lot of things spread out. If you look at redundancy of the cell tower, with each company wanting its own, back then a conditional use permit was primarily so some of the rural areas would have basic services such as public TV, radio and power. Instead of stores spread out, now they have cell towers, with them all trying to get their own coverage. It does not mean there is a gap in coverage for the users. He feels that there should be a criteria in this regard. He knows they can't change things right now, but he feels a demonstrated need is something to consider in the future. He urged the Board to hold the applicants to the siting criteria in the strictest enforceable method possible. They are not talking about just a tower, but obscuring views and ruining property values. They have not offered to buy outright any of these properties as far as he knows. This should not happen just so a cell company can capture a larger part of the market, data and phone use. Someone has to compensate the land owners for such a loss. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 9 of 17 He had a business at one time and still has equipment for installing power poles. He put in thousands of them. A pole has a tag that is ten feet off the ground, and says it is 40 feet long. It is about 34 feet out of the ground. He also has a scenario under siting criteria, DC 18.128.3403, siting with the maximum extent possible, trees, topography, etc. American Tower in their December 4, 2012 letter misreads the intent. Surely the Board would not consider sparse juniper trees and brush coverage for a 100-foot tower. If there were 80 to 100-foot trees or power lines nearby, they could put it where screening is available. Code clearly states that they can't site where there is not screening available. Toni Morgan chose not to speak. Frank Spiecker stated that Alfalfa has been part of his life for over forty years. This tower will rise 40 feet or more from the tree lines, visible for miles from every direction. It will change a peaceful neighborhood to an industrial site. It will reduce property values and change the character of Alfalfa. If the tower is built, it will be seen as existing infrastructure, making the site more available for future towers. In a county like this one, where the natural scenery brings people in and is vital to the economy, these scar the landscape. The tower is not needed or wanted and will pollute the landscape, and hurt citizens. Staff recommended denial, and the Hearings Officer also denied the application. Here they are again. This is meant to be protected by Code. The necessary criteria have not been met. He encouraged the Board to find time to read the written testimony from the December 4, 2012 hearing. The residents worked long and hard on this. He feels that the appeal must be denied. Katya Spiecker, who lives on Alfalfa Market Road, thanked the Board and staff for arranging the hearing to be held in Alfalfa. It means a lot to the citizens there. She opposes the tower. There are additional reasons to deny this application based on values of the community and the County. Most hold in high regard the natural resources surrounding this area. Occasionally cavalier corporate interests threaten this way of life in the name of profit. This application does just that. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 10 of 17 This is a geographically unique area, and many people choose to live here due to the views offered. The tower threatens these views and the associated values of the community. Due to the lack of screening, the tower has the potential to significantly impair views. If constructed, mono pine or mono pole, it is not in harmony with the surrounding landscape. Allowing this would also be precedence setting, so Code and criteria needs further clarification. This is the opportunity to do so. The Board will want to spare residents from the destruction of scenic views and aesthetics. She asked the Board to honor constituents' values and those of previous Commissioners and hold strong against the private interests of irresponsible and reckless development. Carolyn Chase had other comments that related to safety issues. There are many road signs and some are quite unique due to having lots of bullet holes in them. She is concerned regarding the animals and residents. She does not want to see someone shooting at the tower, which could mean bullets coming down on unsuspecting animals and people. She added that copper wire is a valuable commodity. She wondered what could be done to prevent vandalism of the tower. Terri Edwards said she lives in a direct line of the proposed tower, four lots to the west. She just purchased the lot and was not told about the potential tower. They had other choices for bigger and nicer homes, but chose this one for the 360 degree view. She would be looking right at the pole if it goes in. She has not heard about health issues, but is not sure anyone can prove there are no health dangers from cell towers. Research shows that related to distance, cancer, leukemia and other ailments to humans and animals are possible. Primarily, home values would be negatively impacted. When it came up at the end of the real estate transaction, she was assured that the application would be denied. She gained some reassurance from this. Besides the potential health risks, her view would be affected, and no one came to her door to see how it would look from her door. Using just the number of homes in a given area is not the best criteria. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 11 of 17 Connie Manley said she has owned the lot next to the property, to the east towards Alfalfa, since the early 1990's. They planned to build there in retirement, and have a shop there now. The homesite is at the edge with views of the mountains. The towers would be in their front yard. She agrees with all the opponents' testimony. She believes in technology, but the applicants do not live here and don't have the same appreciation of the area. She is not opposed to towers where it makes sense, which is not in this community. David Warren lives about a block from the proposed tower site. Everyone likes the convenience of cell phones and the safety they provide. The people are no anti-cell tower, but want to see responsible corporate citizenship. The applicants said they investigated other sites that they found suitable; but they looked at the cheapest location first. They want a conditional use permit granted because using the existing utilities along Alfalfa Market Road would come with a cost. A letter from Teresa Denham offered a minimally invasive way to do this, but the proposal was dismissed by the applicant without due consideration. This is about greed and not need. More than adequate cell tower coverage exists in this area through other providers. No one wants the cell tower here. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was meant to offer 9-1-1 services to all, not to mandate that a company be allowed to keep up with competitors. It also said that they should be as unobtrusive as possible. It is impossible to adequately disguise or minimize the impacts. It can never exist in harmony and should not be allowed. He asked why citizens should have to suffer due to AT&T's inferior technology. Other providers have been able to provide coverage without erecting 100-foot monopoles in residential areas and alienating entire communities. It is their problem. AT&T made almost $4 billion in profits last year, so obviously should be able to find an appropriate location for their tower. If they have to build more than one tower, that is their problem, not the community's. They are bullies and more communities are denying this kind of proposal. He urged the Board to deny the request for a conditional use permit on the grounds that it would be an illegal violation, and they were disingenuous in their site search. He also asked that the County strengthen the rules regarding cell towers. The role of the Board is to support and protect citizens. The Board needs to make it clear to AT&T and others that the County will take the necessary legal action to prevent this from happening. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 12 of 17 Jay Northfleet, who lives on the north side of Cascade View Estates, said he would be directly affected by the tower, and agrees with the other residents' statements. He said the proponents feel this is necessary but his phones work well, as do those of visitors. Some homes may have spotty coverage, but it appears the community as a whole is happy with the current coverage. The applicants said they did not want to apply for other locations since they might get turned down. It is their responsibility to go through these steps. It shows a true lack of respect, and they don't want to be a participant in the community or try to build a consensus. He feels that there are better options. Andy Andrews lives on Dodds Road. He said that it bothers him that the person who owns the property has been threatened. If he put the tower in front of his house, he would also be sensitive about coming home. He requested that he get a copy of what was given to the Board today. Mr. Blikstad said it would be all scanned and put on the website within a week or so. Addison Manley chose not to speak. Patti Devencenzi said that health issues have been brought up. She is concerned about lightning strikes. She lives less than 1500 feet from the proposed site, and she is concerned for her livestock. She is worried about the noise and how many additional servers will be on the tower, and whether there will be radio frequency emissions or interference. She questioned the threat to the rights of individuals. It is difficult when the right of the individual to put something on their property is at odds with the neighbors. Clearly the residents have voiced their concerns. The applicant talked about a significant gap in service. However, it can't be just for that carrier but a gap in service altogether. This is a vague rule in the Act of 1996, long before technology got where it is, and really doesn't serve anyone now except the carriers. Technology is moving faster than the law can change. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 13 of 17 People live with their cell phones, but it would significantly impair the enjoyment of her property to have a tower there. There is other technology coming up, with shorter poles that could help AT&T get by this area. This would be a win-win for everyone. Apparently, AT&T has not made the effort to research this. She stated that public perception is important. She submitted a survey monkey for health and property values on this issue, and overwhelmingly people felt that there could be health effects and a loss of property values. It is public perception regardless of the research. She asked that the Commissioners please support their citizens. Sean Knox asked that the Board help the community oppose this tower. He fears it could open a floodgate of similar uses. Others will want to put up more. He strongly opposes this cell tower siting. John Devencenzi lives about 1000 feet from the tower site. He agrees with all the other testimony, which was thoughtful. He does not think the applicants have done the research needed on alternative sites. Everyone knows each other, but he is concerned about the lack of communication. They all pitch in if there is a problem. The occupant of the property did not even know about the proposed tower until it was applied for. They should have talked to the neighbors. Linda Armente lives west of the property. She agreed with all the opponents, and submitted some photos. She visited a tower in Idaho, owned by American Towers, that has a posted sign on the fence that says the RF readings may exceed what is good for humans. Also, the property owner said she was going to move as soon as she got her money from the company so she would not have to look at the tower herself. Debbie Ellis White said her shop and home are closer to the tower than the property owner's own home. A beautiful view will become a view of a monster tower. Property values will fall. People will perceive health risks also. There is no vegetation to screen it. It is just the cheapest place to put the tower. The company is here to build towers, and wants them about every four miles. She is scared by potentially living so close to a tower. She feels it is the legal obligation of the County to protect its citizens. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 14 of 17 Marsha Brown said she drives through this community all the time and feels sorry for the residents here. There are ways to disguise the pole, but those have not been researched. She finds much of the applicants' attitude insulting to the community. Doug Butler lives in Bend and his friend lives near the site. He also is concerned about health effects, but he knows the Board is not able to raise this due to Constitutional issue. However, the Supreme Court has determined that not all laws passed by Congress are legal. The Telecommunications Act is a notable one, but should change due to potential health issues. It violates the rights of people and the community. State and local governments should have the right and obligation to limit services if not appropriate. Cell towers fit into this. Communities have sought repeal of these laws if they infringe upon the rights of the local government. He provided a copy of this type of motion from the City of Los Angeles. Also, the Portland City Council asked the FCC to work with the FDA to study and update this research. Things have changed since 1996. He would like to see the Board appeal this law and its limitations. Chair Unger asked what the service area of the tower is. Richard Bush said the answer is in the materials provided today. Mr. Bush said the opponents went into great length about the applicants not being here today. They are not needed if the information has already been submitted. They spent a considerable amount of time regarding the search ring. When there are attachments showing search rings are several miles wide, that is a misreading. There is a small area in the circle that is the search ring. The antennas broadcast from the center so they need to compare the coverage to the site. Sometimes it will work, like on Hinkle Butte, but that is not true for most sites. There were comments regarding AT&T coverage. There is a Ninth Circuit Court case where the Court said every carrier has the right to build its own facilities and offer services. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 15 of 17 And regarding inferior technology, they are at 1900 MHz, while others have 800- 900 MHz. The higher bands mean better service. The carriers in the higher bands have to build more sites to bring in quality services. Mr. Shipman said there was groundtruthing done in this matter. It was not hastily done. The applicant's statement shows they talked with 18 owners and identified 21 sites. They then identified the pros and cons of those sites. He noted that they looked at alternative sites and views, but supposedly not the depth of detail. You will find the view is the view. It is of Horse Ridge or the Cascades. The topography here does not change much. Most of it is fairly level, as shown by topographic maps. The trees are very similar throughout. Since there has been additional information submitted by both parties, he requested there be adequate time to respond to this. Ms. Craghead clarified they are allowing an extension so this can be accommodated. Commissioner Baney said they are talking about this site in particular. Mr. Blikstad said that part of this process is the applicant having to show they investigated other sites. Applying for another site would be a new process. Chair Unger closed the oral portion of the hearing. Ms. Craghead said they asked for 14 days to respond to what was submitted today, with a week for rebuttal (July 5) with no new evidence; and an additional week for final rebuttal from the ' applicant. They would need a couple of weeks after that to write a decision for the Board. She asked the applicant for an extension to the end of August. He said he would find out if that is acceptable with his clients. Ms. Craghead reiterated: June 28, close the record to new information. July 5 for rebuttal from anyone - then closed to new evidence. July 12 for applicant's final rebuttal. • All is due by 5 PM on those days, with the information going to Community Development staff, in particular Mr. Blikstad. • The Board's deliberations and decision will follow within the timeframe allowed. Minutes of Public Hearing - Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 16 of 17 Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned 8:40 p.m. DATED this Day of 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissio s. dL6t',~ Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice Chit ATTEST: *Pt~ Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Public Hearing Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal Thursday, June 13, 2013 Page 17 of 17 i W Gam ~ L 3 t3 -A ~ I a Vv~C vet-~law~ 'i ' d~-~~ S' c~•~j V~ IL - ec. Lc,S L-Y arc s G LeJj I L e e_r Ida t- m °l` e, &I I cx pro C- 11~aLel'zl v\ vi L V v ` a vx P- L4 Irl Z~ a ~J VJc r V e ,!n, r1 O ' 0 Q- O 4 L o \r IP tA en a r a p 1-7 r W o), BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name IRIG +4 4 /2U Sc H i4'(7T .....)?7g Ar# r Address v? f S F h A,4< /55 4 Q~ w gSaa? Phone #s ({02,~ 66-If f~9 Yd E-mail address Z le 9. 12 ogees (a td 10- F Lass Cc~, A~ > L . cc,." In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting writt en documents as part of testimony? 4!~ Yes No If so, please' give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. HOARD of COOOMIO R I wG REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area at Y Name a Address QQ 1 08 d' f~) A~ A Phone #s E-mail ad ❑ In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ; ` Yos No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary or the record. Name Agenda Item: Pro osed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: 6~' -13 Address 2;:2 61 ✓`C Phone #s 3 8 a - 8.316 E-mail address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ® Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQIEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name Address 261,41A17~ ✓~``~~.e~"~ Phone #s E-mail address S~Q/ ~ G~e•~!' 9 ~ 1 Co PL-l' In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? aYes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. a 0 Date: Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Name _ kV2~1- 5 (+1 (OW Address LkM& CV-4 S 6. , ~ Wrf c. ;4b ~d~, &4- 6)7 REOLTEST TO SPEAK Phone #s ' . 3grR - 107 0 E-mail address ~lS`vtjOwraM~SG . N+t In Favor ❑ NeutralMndecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secret or the record. 4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tow,er -Alfalfa Area Date: Name. Address aVe?/S A 24e ~~-„LD_ L u Phone #s _ ,5''`-L- 3l~ o 0 % E-mail address CC- A49 -5 441- - cotvt ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Ed Opposed Submitting written documents as part of stimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording' Secretary for the record... BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING lug a ~ inn M... I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEJETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 17 Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower Alfalfa Area ]ate: 3 Name e-r r + Address Lt! On~ Q Phone #s~ E-mail address a tt~ ~ 1 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [Yes: ❑ No ~ If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Y:. BOARD OF COMMSSIONI'ERS' MEETING ~REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Oate: C3 Name bil /I i & / ' ' Ofi I Address aSD-C?o 4 lq~xf- H gj_-- bfI q i~ Phone #s E-mail address 0bu fe. ~oti e In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? AYes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor X BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING _W_✓ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name DAM) Y-) 1A mv"jy Address 0312 b 1 (4 Phone #s E-mail address In Favor El Neutral/Undecided Opposed j Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for tl cprdr. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEWING a ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Pro osed Cqjj Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: 4 a Address c~ Phone #s /5C E-mail ad s F] In. Favor F-] NeutraLUndecided U--posed i Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F1 Yes I L _'.I o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower -_Alfalfa Area Date: 3 - ~3 r ^n 1 " &n 16V Name .G~ 6a Address 01.5A:ffo&- Phone #s 541 E-mail address Q d l .s d o ~riCir1 Q C.~CJI'Y1Cs t/ 1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony ❑Yes No o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING CD REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name J Jq vC' Address / x'74 AhE ✓ 1, -LD 692 2 f7 o / Phone #s I yl - ~ / - F7n E-mail address ❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part oft'estimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Rcmding S retary for the record. I 1W BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 0 Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower Alfalfa Area Date: rP ` ~~"I Name Vm. Del-eneerm Address CO rOQ5 U rn t 2e r end ( oil-lot Phone #s 541-2"-10R& E-mail address ❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F Yes 0 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JYE53 lu BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower -„Al-falfa Area Date: Name~~i,214a•- Address 3 9 r~ / , s lanx _&ol Phone #s E-mail address -.n- m In Favor Neutral/Undecided ® Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes' ~ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower Alfalfa Area Name Address 6 2.77 7 In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes', R"N'o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Name i (i Ge- a, 4 G ' .54Z~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a REQUEST TO SPEAK Address L A- T 4-"q Phone #s 0 Date: o3 (I D(4 (Date: (2,b 13 E-mail address Q__ 00. to In Favor F-] NeutraUUndecided 70'Qpposed Submitting written doc rents as part of ~mony? 1911yels! F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Phone #s X11 ~v _k2 ' Q '~3q E-mail address S . C 1' { IIP _AA Q M, ~ . ~'nm Uti _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 0 Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name k%,~ - Address Phone #sti~ ~ E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? YYes, ' ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed' Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: Name I QAAX') Address / Lit/ c ' Phone #s E-mail address L 1 ] s Y~' ~1 ]-~v v In Favor F Neutrl/CJndecide ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes' No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. I z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' ME)ETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Proposed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: 1~0_ Name C P J~o Address CQ 0 Phone #s ~~'i I - ~ 1-7. - 9`S 1 E-mail address ( L_6/~ 6Z2 (c_p,~ C_-evx~~' 0 In Favor Neutral/UndecidedOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes, F No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary or the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item: Pro osed Cell Tower - Alfalfa Area Date: c-(3- t3 Name 11kal 0- r 44 1* o~ 30 Address QIL 0d RC ~r 7 Phone #s S*-1/ l 7 Z~ ` 1/ 6 3 E-mail address e b2, G e G 4pL~ E] In Favor El NeutraWndecided Opposed Submitting. written documents as part of testimony? F] Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for t g ary he record. P~t Il("~Ierr 2~{RYS kM~s La vLe BjM Sal f --IV, P-., 0 0 cz- L ooO4 I r4--t 3`y~ 15~ 4 ryAv / r c tt !F.3c) ~ -T 4574 elm S~07kZ, i-7 t AIJOI;e 15 4*0 V:~~ z oo~ 617 96C?- , ~-A..adn AA-RkIm vu ran , -~i 4 II s a~,~l . --3R z c pro I c_aR-~ rl3,Aj W,4 Q -330 X630 Die?ovv/~I ~I/lcr~,l~ $IM~v~n aM S~t~ 3qS ewla C ~-w y 3S-YTS - 39 Ya ~I c~~„Bv~c<~ ~~,2 cESS c'a~. c . PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A DE NOVO PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS L INTRODUCTION A. This is a de novo hearing on a proposed telecommunications facility in the RR-10 zone, consisting of a 100-foot monopole and associated ground equipment The County File Number is CU-12-15 _ B. This application was previously considered by the Hearings Officer after a public hearing was held on December 4, 2012. Evidence and testimony were received at that hearing. The Hearings Officer issued a decision denying the application. That decision was mailed out on March 1, 2013. An appeal by the applicant was submitted within the 12-day appeal period established in County Code. C. The Board takes notice of the record below and includes that record as part of the record before us. II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal sought. B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed in the Hearings Officer's decision and include Chapters 18.60, 18.116 and 18.128 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal, to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board. The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. 2. Proponents and opponents will then be given an opportunity to testify in the order called by the Chair. 3. The applicants will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may not present new evidence. 4. At the Board's discretion, if the applicant presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 5. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. 6. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. C. Continuances The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open. D. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left to a date certain for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. 2 E. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed a period to a date certain after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. V. PRE-HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state their nature and extent. B. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest? (Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.) (Staff Report) 'n June 13, 2013 Via email to: board0deschutes.org original to follow via first class mail Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 RE: Conditional Use Application File No. CU-12-15 Our File No. 22756 r yYl Dear Honorable Commissioners: The Applicant in the above-described Conditional Use Application does hereby grant Deschutes County an extension to the 150-day time limit for an additional one hundred sixteen (116) days from April 6, 2013 until July 31, 2013, to issue its decision in this matter, as permitted by ORS 215.427(4). The Application was submitted on October 8, 2012 and accepted as complete by Deschutes County on November 7, 2012. The extended deadline is now 266 days after the application was deemed complete. This extension in no way is intended to waive the Applicant's rights to any other provisions of ORS 215.427 beyond what is stated herein. As always, if you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely ,MARK D. IPMF mshipman sglaw.cr Voice M sage #310 MDS:jsm cc: Paul Blikstad, Deschutes County Planning Department (via email and first-class mail) H:\D=\22500.22999\22756\Com$POFW* ce\Emer,s on.l M",Pswhuns Cty.6-6.1ID= Park Place, Suite 300 250 Church Street SE Salem. Oregon 97301 Post Office Box 470 Salem, Oregon 97308 tcl 501399.1070 fax 503.371.2927 www.sgiaw.com Before the Board this evening is an appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications facility on an approximately 5-acre lot in a Rural Residential zone. A hearing was held on December 4, 2012, and testimony and evidence was submitted at that hearing. The Hearings Officer denied the application based on two criteria, which are listed under DCC 18.128.340(B)(2) and (B)(5). These criteria are listed on the page handed out as part of this hearing. Under criterion (B)(2), the Hearings Officer found: • Requires a search for co-location opportunities and a search for alternative sites that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences that the site proposed. • The applicant did not consider utilizing the transmission line along Elk Lane • The applicant did not adequately address or respond to the opponents suggestion of using the Dept of State Lands property. • Where negative visual impacts are unavoidable, a larger search ring should be considered • Demonstrated negative visual impacts on surrounding properties can make urban and non- resource lands unavailable for a telecommunications facility. • The applicant failed to demonstrate that locating the facility on the DSL property or potential locations on Elk Lane was not possible because they also represent negative visual impacts. Under criterion (B)(5), the Hearings Officer found: • This criterion has not been the central focus of prior telecommunications facility decision, and to Staff's knowledge has not been interpreted by the Board before. There are no LUBA or Court of Appeals decision on the County's code language. • This criterion is directed at scenic views and that in all cases, applicants are obligated to minimize impacts on scenic views, and where scenic views are impacted by a telecommunications facility. • The surrounding area has scenic views, consisting of the open desert plateau, Cascade mountains, Horse Ridge, Pine Mountain and the Paulina Mountains. • The second sentence of this criterion modifies the first sentence and when scenic views are present, the siting of a telecommunications tower shall be disallowed where there is no vegetation, structures or terrain to meaningfully screen the facility. The screening must actually be effective at screening the proposed tower. The proposed facility is not meaningfully screened at this site. 18.128.340(6)(2) The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas on existing monopoles in the area to be served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co- location within the area to be served. 18.128.340(B)(5) In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. June 12, 2013 Dear Commissioners, My name is Frank Spiecker. I am a resident of this community. Alfalfa has been a part of my life for 40 years, and I am strongly opposed to this cell tower. At 100 feet tall, this tower, if built will rise 70 to 80 feet above the native tree line. It will be visible from Badlands Wilderness and for miles in every direction. It will change a peaceful rural residential neighborhood into an industrial site. It will reduce property values in the area. There's no question of this. It will change the character of Alfalfa, becoming the focal point at the entrance to our community. If this tower is built, it will then be seen as existing infrastructure making the site a prime target for similar applications in the future. It will set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future towers to be built where there is no meaningful screening available, such as this site. In a county like Deschutes where the natural scenery draws people from all over the world, where tourism is vital to the local economy, these towers should be of great concern to you. Because cell towers visibly scar landscapes! I can't think of one good reason why this tower should be built. It's not needed. It's not wanted. It will pollute the landscape in more ways than one, and it will hurt citizens of this county. Months ago the staff report recommended denial of American Tower's application. The county hearings officer denied the application. And here we are again. This proposed tower site is exactly the kind of site that section B.5 of the approval criteria was meant to protect, sites that have no meaningful screening available. Because necessary criteria has not been met and because of the hardships and sacrifices that many citizens of this community will be forced to endure, their appeal must be denied. I urge you to please find the time to read the written testimony submitted for the December 4 hearing. Alfalfa residents worked long and hard on their letters. It's important to us that you read them. I know there's quite a stack. Maybe you could take them home with you. Obviously, I feel that American Tower Corporation's appeal to build this tower must be denied. Thank you! Sincerely, Frank Spiecker P.S. There are alternatives to high impact, controversial cell towers. Cell tower companies won't like the idea but I think the public and county governments will. We attached a couple of articles on the subject. Thanks again. Alliance of Neighbors of Walt Whitman High School: AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CELL... Page 2 of 5 operating at much lower, power levels. It is called a Distributed Antenna System ("DAS"). The industry defines a DASas"a - network of spatially separated (a) antenna nudes connected to a common L~ " f source via (b) a transport medium that provides wireless service within a geographic area or structure." ) What this means is that instead of having central, high-powered antennas emit from a single, tall cell tower (as in Diagram (a) to the right), a group of small, lower- powered antennas are Mounted atop existing utility poles throughout the coverage area (as in Diagram (b)). The photograph to the left shows such an antenna mounted on top of <'a standard utility pole. 'You may view a larger, copy of this photograph by clicking this Using a DAS would have the following advantages over, the proposed cell tower: 1. The antennas would be located away frorn the school grounds. This would ameliorate the concerns that have been raised in the community related to a potential health risk for school-aged children. 2. This would avoid using school grounds for noneducational, commercial purposes. Other Sites Addressing Cell Tower Installations - families furious over farm plans Stoke & StaffordshireAnd mobile phone giants 02 and Vodafone want to install a 21 metre-high (69ft) mast at the same 11-ac... 9 y ar argo 6 - *MCPS and the use of long-teen substitutes (long-term substitutes do not have to be certified teachers and can exist in MC'S classrooms for years without p.,, 10 hours ago Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) http://whitmanhighceUtower.blogspot.coml2010/03laltemative-to-cell-tower.html 6/8/2013 ,Alliance of Neighbors of Walt Whitman High School: AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CELL... 3. It would avoid the industrial appearance of a tall tower, that would severely interfere with the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. The antennas would blend in with the existing utility poles and barely be noticeable. & Each antenna's power output would be lower. In fact, T-Mobile and the wireless industry as a whole have in various ways endorsed and advocated using DAS: T-Mobile is a founding mernber of The DAS Forum, which describes itself as "the only national network of leaders focused exclusively on shaping the future of DAS as a viable complement to traditional macro cell sites and a solution to the deployment of wireless services in challenging environments." ( ) In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the.cell phone industry association CTIA recently emphasized that "placing wireless communications equipment on existing electric utility distribution poles is important in residential neighborhoods and areas where consumers expect wireless coverage but oppose the aesthetic impact of larger wireless towers." (In the Matter of A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, FCC GN Docket No. 09-51, Reply Comments of CTIA-The Wireless Association at 14 (July 21, 2009); click this to access this document.) Using a DAS has already been considered in Montgomery County as an alternative to a T-Mobile cell tower on public school grounds. In 2006, when T-Mobile applied to install a cell tower on the grounds of Julius West Middle School in Rockville, T-Mobile was asked to comment on the use of a DAS as an alternative, in order to minimize the visual impact on the neighborhood. In that particular case, a DAS turned out not to be a viable option because all utilities in the area were underground and no utility poles existed to which a DAS could be attached. (City of Rockville Planning Commission Staff Report re. Special Exception Application SPX2005-00364 (Nov. 9, 2006), click this to access the Report.) Faced with intense community opposition, Montgomery County Public Schools ultimately decided not to proceed with this cell tower application. Moreover, when T-Mobile first proposed to erect a cell tower on the Whitman school grounds, it was already fully aware that this Page 3 of 5 http://whitmanhighcelltower.blogspot.coml2010/03/alternative-to-cell-tower.html 6/8/2013 ',,Alliance of Neighbors of Walt Whitman High School: AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CELL... Page 4 of 5 proposal would generate intense opposition in the community- First, the Whitman community is notorious for such opposition ever since it defeated a cell tower proposal at Pyle Middle School in 2005. Second, the neighboring communities of Wootton and Walter Johnson High Schools also successfully warded off cell tower proposals in 2005. Third, T-Mobile itself has testified about its experience with "thousands of school boards about locating [cell towers] on their properties, and that where there is opposition in the community to the construction of a [cell tower], such opposition is likely to be intensified if the proposed location of the [cell tower] is on school property." (T-Mobile v. City of Anacortes, U.S- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 08-35493 slip op. at n. 12 (July 20, 2009); click this to access the Court's Opinion.) Against this background, one may wonder why T-Mobile has not proposed using DAS technology instead of a cell tower on the Whitman school grounds. T-Mobile's reasons may include the following: 1. Installing a DAS would require T-Mobile to lease space from Pepco at the top of the utility poles on which T-Mobile would mount the antennas; 2. T-Mobile generates profits from leasing space on its cell towers to other cell phone companies, which it could not generate from a DAS. In fact, under the standard lease form used by MCPS for cell towers, T-Mobile would recoup a significant portion of its costs in constructing the cell tower, as well as collect monthly rental payments, from colocating cell phone carriers. 3. The Whitman school grounds include a relatively large area that could accommodate several additional cell towers while satisfying the set-back requirements under the Zoning Ordinance. (Click this to access our, separate post containing a map of that area.) As T-Mobile explained in a recent filing with the FCC, it holds licenses only in the upper frequency bands of the wireless spectrum, which require more antennas than lower frequencies. For this reason, and in order to accommodate rapidly increasing wireless traffic and new types of applications (streaming video, data transmissions, etc.), T-Mobile may soon require additional antennas within the Whitman area. To that end, T-Mobile: may be planning to erect additional cell towers on the Whitman school grounds once the first call tower is in place. At that point, it would be very difficult to convince the zoning authorities that adding a second cell tower next to an existing one would interfere with the character, of the http://whitmanW&c,elltower.blogspot.cam/2010/03/alternative-to-cell-tower.htmi 6/8/2013 ti Alliance of Neighbors of Walt Whitman High School: AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CELL... Page 5 of 5 Y We note, however, that T-Mobile's relative profits are not elements to be considered by the County authorities in 0-e zoning process, Maximizing the industry's profits also is not what Congress had in mind when it intended to encourage the deployment of wireless broadband service to all of America by passing such federal legislation as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Indeed, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserved local zoning authority over "placement, construction, and modification" of cell towers. We have a right to use the zoning laws to protect our neighborhood. NO COMMENTS: POST A COMMENT You may e-mail us directly at googabh@gmaii.com or you may leave a comment here. Enter your comment. Comment as: Select profile... V Publish Preview LINKS TO THIS POST Saturday, March 13, 2010 Chid you know that T-Mobile does not have to erect a 12-story-high cell tower on the Whitman school grounds in order to improve coverage in the area? In fact, there are alternate locations at which T-Mobile can set up its antennas. Also, an alternate technology exists that is visually much less intrusive and involves antennas neighborhood. Indeed, many examples of such "twin towers" already exist in our area. Share This Biog SHARE Subscribe http://whitrnanhighcelltower.blogspot.com/2010/03/alternative-to-cell-tower.html 6/$/2013 http://whitrnanhighcelltower.blogspot.com/2010/03/alternative-to-cell-tower.html 6/8/2013 Cell Phone Towers To Be Replaced By Tiny Antennas Cell Phone Towers To Be Replaced By Tiny Antennas 02/11/11 11:52 PM ET Associated Press AP Page 1 of 2 NEW YORK - As cell phones have spread, so have large cell towers - those unsightly stalks of steel topped by transmitters and other electronics that sprouted across the country over the last decade. Now the wireless industry is planning a future without them, or at least without many more of them. Instead, it's looking at much smaller antennas, some tiny enough to hold in a hand. These could be placed on lampposts, utility poles and buildings - virtually anywhere with electrical and network connections. If the technology overcomes some hurdles, it could upend the wireless industry and offer seamless service, with fewer dead spots and faster data speeds. Some big names in the wireless world are set to demonstrate "small cell" technologies at the Mobile World Congress, the world's largest cell phone trade show, which starts Monday in Barcelona, Spain. "We see more and more towers that become bigger and bigger, with more and bigger antennas that come to obstruct our view and clutter our landscape and are simply ugly," said Wim Sweldens, president of the wireless division of Alcatel-Lucent, the French-U.S. maker of telecommunications equipment. "What we have realized is that we, as one of the major mobile equipment vendors, are partially if not mostly to blame for this." Alcatel-Lucent will be at the show to demonstrate its "lightRadio cube," a cellular antenna about the size and shape of a Rubik's cube, vastly smaller than the ironing-board-sized antennas that now decorate cell towers. The cube was developed at the famous Bell Labs in New Jersey, birthplace of many other inventions when it was AT&T's research center. In Alcatel-Lucent's vision, these little cubes could soon begin replacing conventional cell towers. Single cubes or clusters of them could be placed indoors or out and be easily hidden from view. All they need is electrical power and an optical fiber connecting them to the phone company's network. The cube, Sweldens said, can make the notion of a conventional cell tower "go away." Alcatel-Lucent will start trials of the cube with carriers in September. The company hopes to make it commercially available next year. Sponsored Unks Assurancedi Wireless See if You Qualify for the Lifeline Assistance Program. Learn More, w%w.Assurancewireless.oom Virgin MoblleO Shop Virgin Mobile's No Contract Service Plans & Sleek Devices Now! w-virginmobileuse-corn Boosts Official Site Browse Our No Contract Plans Today. Phones Starting As Low As 529.991 www.Booetlvlobile.com Buy a link here For cell phone companies, the benefits of dividing their networks into smaller "cells," each one served by something like the cube antenna, go far beyond esthetics. Smaller cells mean vastly higher capacity for calls and data traffic. Instead of having all phones within a mile or two connect to the same cell tower, the traffic could be divided between several smaller cells, so there's less competition for the cell tower's attention. "If it is what they claim, IightRadio could be a highly disruptive force within the wireless industry," said Dan Hays, who focuses on telecommunications at consulting firm PRTM. Rasmus Hellberg, director of technical marketing at wireless technology developer Qualcomm Inc., said smaller cells can boost a network's capacity tenfold, far more than can be achieved by other upgrades to wireless technology that are also in the works. That's sure to draw the interest of phone companies. They've already been deploying older generations of small-cell technology in areas where a lot of people gather, like airports, train stations and sports stadiums, but these are expensive and complicated to install. In New York City, AT&T Inc. has started creating a network of outdoor Wt-Fi hotspots, starting in Times Square and now spreading through the midtown tourist and shopping districts. Its network has been hammered by an onslaught of data-hungry iPhone users, and this is one way of moving that traffic off the cellular network. Smaller cells could do the same job, but for all phones, not just Wi-Fi enabled ones like the iPhone. They could also carry calls as well as data. San Diego-based Qualcomm will be at the Barcelona show with a live demonstration of how "heterogeneous networks" - ones that mix big and small cells, can work. A key issue is minimizing radio interference between the two types of cells- Another hurdle is connecting the smaller cells to the bigger network through optical fiber or other high-capacity connections. "That's an impediment that we're seeing many operators struggling with right now as data volumes have increased," Hays said http://Www.huffingtonpost.coml2011/02/12/cell-phone-towers-to-be-r n 822332.htm1 6/8/2013 Cell Phone Towers To Be Replaced By Tiny Antennas Page 2 of 2 LM Ericsson AB, the Swedish company that's the largest maker of wireless network equipment in the world, is also introducing a more compact antenna at the show, one it calls "the first stepping stone towards a heterogeneous network." Small cellular base stations have already penetrated hundreds of thousands of U.S. homes. Phone companies like AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel Corp. have for several years been selling "femtocells," which are about the size of a Wt-Fi router and connect to the phone company's network through a home broadband connection. The cells project radio signals that cover a room or two, providing five bars of coverage where there might otherwise be none. British femtocell maker Ubiquisys Ltd. will be in Barcelona to demonstrate the smallest cell yet. It's the size of a thumb and plugs into a computer's USB drive. According to Ubiquisys, the idea is that overseas travellers will plug it into their Intemet-connected laptops to make calls as if they were on their home network, but there are potential problems with interference if used that way. According to Rupert Baines, marketing head of Picochip Ltd., a more realistic application for a tiny plug-in cell is to make it work with cable boxes or Internet routers, to convert them into femtocells. A key part of the "small cell" idea is to take femtocells outside the home, into larger buildings and even outdoors. Picochip, a British company that's the dominant maker of chips for femtocells, will be in Barcelona to talk about its chips for "public- access" femtocells, designed to serve up to 64 phone calls at a time, with a range of more than a mile. They could be used not just to ease wireless congestion in urban areas, but to fill in dead spots on the map, Baines said. For instance, a single femtocell could provide wireless service to a remote village, as long as there's some way to connect it to the wider network, perhaps via satellite. Analyst Francis Sideco of research firm iSuppli pointed out a surprising consumer benefit of smaller cells: better battery life in phones. When a lot of phones talk to the same tower, they all have to "shout" to make themselves heard, using more energy. With a smaller cell, phones can lower their "voices," much like group of people moving from a noisy ballroom to a smaller, quieter room. "Ultimately, what you end up with is a cleaner signal, with less power," Sideco said. http://www.huffingtonpost.coml2011/02/12/cell-phone-towers-to-be-r_n_822332.html. C6WM13 06.13.13 My name is Linda Armenta and I live to the west of the propsed site. My property will be approximately 32 ft from the propsed tower. My home will be closer to the tower than Barbara Ellingboes house (Barbara is the owner of proposed property). This tower will affect my scenic view which is the main reason I purchased my home. I previously submitted pictures of my view. It will take away from the natural beauty and change the atmosphere. I feel AT&T is being very irresponsible in the placement of this tower. AT&T has not done adequate research of the available sites in the area. They have stated the reason for placing the tower at this location is because it's easy access to power lines and the fiber in the phone lines. Easy access to power and phone lines is not a good enough reason to disrupt our community!!! Teresa Denham has offered her property as a potential site and she is approximately 3 miles from proposed site, Dale Erikmeir who lives on Deer Lane also offered his property. AT&T has stated that the proposed site has vegetation that will shelter the tower. The proposed site has one tree approximately 20 ft tall. The power poles in the area are approximately 34 ft tall. Those two items will not shelter a 100ft monopole. Another issue I would like to point out is if this tower was to go through. What would the resale value of my home be? I will definitely be selling my home and relocating if you grant AT&T the right to put a cell tower at the proposed site. I have included some pictures of a tower that was put up by American Tower and on the chain link fence is a sign that clearly states that the RF fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure. Again my property will be approximately 32 ft from the cell tower. My health is very important to me. Ms. Ellingboe stated that once this tower goes through she will rent out her home and move. If this lady has no intentions on living by a cell phone tower why would AT&T and Ms Ellingboe expect us homeowners to! Thank you for your time. *1~4* Linda Armenta 0 This sign is posted on an American Tower fence clearly stating that the radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure. My property (riding arena) will be approximately 32 ft away from this tower. This is putting me and others at risk! Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health:... http://aaemoriline.org/emf rf_position.htmi AM tCAN 'rCICM1 01' L(I. , WdIwic AcAD6A yoF i eri!rrI ENVI1tE7NmENTAI MEDICINE s rz+, -sR u~~ J ~ ~ P d o ~ ( ~ ~ , ~ i,er~ rpnr r ra n~miur r DnGnei res COtt#Si~f<;RS Click here for ^DF f rm Find AAEM Member State / Country Select ~ ql_._l ember Types Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Ggf Effect on Human Health search site For over 50 years, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has been studying - ° and treating the effects of the environment on human health. In the last 20 years, our physicians r Gu! began seeing patients who reported that electric power lines, televisions and other electrical devices caused a wide variety of symptoms. By the mid 1990's, it became clear that patients were Quick Links adversely affected by electromagnetic fields and becoming more electrically sensitive. In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices, there has been a massive increase in radiofrequency • Valued Exhibitors (RF) exposure from wireless devices as well as reports of hypersensitivity and diseases related to • Member.. Resources electromagnetic field and RF exposure, Multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such • Donate here as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Membership The electromagnetic wave spectrum is divided into ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet and X-rays • About AAEM and non-ionizing radiation such as radiofrequency (RF), which includes WiFi, cell phones, and Smart Meter wireless communication. It has long been recognized that ionizing radiation can have a negative impact on health. However, the effects of non-ionizing radiation on human health recently have been seen. Discussions and research of non-ionizing radiation effects centers around thermal and non-thermal effects. According to the FCC and other regulatory agencies, only thermal effects are relevant regarding health implications and consequently, exposure limits are based on thermal effects only.' While it was practical to regulate thermal bioeffects, it was also stated that non-thermal effects are not well understood and no conclusive scientific evidence points to non-thermal based negative health effects,' Further arguments are made with respect to RF exposure from WiFi, cell towers and smart meters that due to distance, exposure to these wavelengths are negligible .2 However, many in vitro, In vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure and satisfy Hill's criteria of causality.3 Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Genotoxic effects from RF exposure, Including studies of non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks .4-11 A statistically significant dose response effect was demonstrated by Maschevich et al. , who reported a linear increase in aneuploidy as a function of the Specific Absorption Rate(SAR) of RF exposure." Genotoxic effects are documented to occur in neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow. Adverse developmental effects due to non-thermal RF exposure have been shown with decreased litter size in mice from RF exposure well below safety standards.12 The World Health Organization has classified RF emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen.13 Cellular telephone use in rural areas was also shown to be associated with an increased risk for malignant brain tumors. 14 The fact that RF exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, have been found.4,7,15-17 Nittby et al. demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response effect between non-thermal RF exposure and occurrence of albumin leak across the blood-brain barrier.ls Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzhelmer's, Parkinson's and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported.4,10 Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep r disturbances and visual disruption have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple 1 of4 6/13/2013 9:37 AM Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health:... http://aaemonline.org/emf rf position.html epidemiological studies with RF exposure occurring non- locally. 18-21 Nephrotoxic effects from RF exposure also have been reported. A dose response effect was observed by Ingole and Ghosh in which RF exposure resulted in mild to extensive degenerative changes in chick embryo kidneys based on duration of RF exposure.24 RF emissions have also been shown to cause isomeric changes in amino acids that can result in nephrotoxicity as well as hepatotoxicity. 25 Electromagnetic field (EMF) hypersensitivity has been documented in controlled and double blind studies with exposure to various EMF frequencies. Rea et al. demonstrated that under double blind placebo controlled conditions, 100/0 of subjects showed reproducible reactions to that frequency to which they were most sensitive.22 Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies were shown to consistently provoke neurological symptoms in a blinded subject while exposure to continuous frequencies did not.23 Although these studies clearly show causality and disprove the claim that health effects from RF exposure are uncertain, there is another mechanism that proves electromagnetic frequencies, including radlofrequencies, can negatively impact human health. Government agencies and industry set safety standards based on the narrow scope of Newtonian or "classical" physics reasoning that the effects of atoms and molecules are confined in space and time. This model supports the theory that a mechanical force acts on a physical object and thus, long-range exposure to EMF and RF cannot have an impact on health if no significant heating occurs. However, this is an incomplete model. A quantum physics model is necessary to fully understand and appreciate how and why EMF and RF fields are harmful to humans. 76,27 In quantum physics and quantum field theory, matter can behave as a particle or as a wave with wave-like properties. Matter and electromagnetic fields encompass quantum fields that fluctuate in space and time. These interactions can have long-range effects which cannot be shielded, are non-linear and by their quantum nature have uncertainty. Living systems, including the human body, interact with the magnetic vector potential component of an electromagnetic field such as the field near a toroidal coil.26,28,29 The magnetic vector potential is the coupling pathway between biological systems and electromagnetic fields.26,27 Once a patient's specific threshold of intensity has been exceeded, it is the frequency which triggers the patient's reactions. Long range EMF or RF forces can act over large distances setting a biological system oscillating in phase with the frequency of the electromagnetic field so it adapts with consequences to other body systems. This also may produce an electromagnetic frequency imprint into the living system that can be long lasting.26,11,30 Research using objective instrumentation has shown that even passive resonant circuits can imprint a frequency into water and biological systems.31 These quantum electrodynamic effects do exist and may explain the adverse health effects seen with EMF and RF exposure. These EMF and RF quantum field effects have not been adequately studied and are not fully understood regarding human health. Because of the well documented studies showing adverse effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field effect, AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to EMF, RF and general frequency exposure. In an era when all society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function. It is clear that the human body uses electricity from the chemical bond to the nerve impulse and obviously this orderly sequence can be disturbed by an individual-specific electromagnetic frequency environment. Neighbors and whole communities are already exercising precaution, demanding abstention from wireless in their homes and businesses. Furthermore, the AAEM asks for: • An immediate caution on Smart Meter installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure. • Accommodation for health considerations regarding EMF and RF exposure, including exposure to wireless Smart Meter technology. • Independent studies to further understand the health effects from EMF and RF exposure. • Recognition that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a growing problem worldwide. • Understanding and control of this electrical environmental bombardment for the protection of society. . Consideration and independent research regarding the quantum effects of EMF and RF on human health. • Use of safer technology, including for Smart Meters, such as hard-wiring, fiber optics or 2 of 4 6/13/2013 9:37 AM My name is Linda. Armenta and I have lived at 25050 Alfalfa Market Rd for approximately 7 years. I live directly to the east of the proposed tower site. I would like to express my opposition to the installation of the AT&T cell tower at 25070 Alfalfa Market Road. I strongly feel that this is not an appropriate location for a 100 ft Monopole Cell Phone Tower. Paul Blikstad states that this tower will be a focal point for people driving by! Rod Michaels stated that people will be driving 55 miles per hour on Alfalfa Market Road and will view the tower quickly. I'd like to express my concerns in regards to this issue. Approximately 400 ft to the east of the proposed site is Juniper Road. We have numerous children, adults and dogs waiting for bus pick ups. If the county thinks this tower will be a focal point won't this bus stop be put in harms way? Where is the safety for our children? Who will be responsible for an accident, injury or fatality? Mr. Michaels, AT&T or Barbara Ellingboe? Section 18.04.030 defines "shade" My home is passive solar and the shade from this Tier 3 tower and antennas will defiantly impact my property as per the testimony of Michael Lake. The statement reads the monopole would be considered a "narrow object". That is true for the pole but the tiers on the top are not a narrow object and are not mentioned and will definitely shade my home. Section 18.60.070 This states that the building is situated on a 50' by 60' gravel site this is a natural fire break. Cascade View Estates does not have a fire department. What about the combustible fuels? I read a case where a cell tower caught on fire and the fire department had to let it burn itself out because the hoses that the fire department use only have enough pressure to reach a 4 story building. I contacted the fire marshal in Bend and he said that they have to ability to extinguish up to 4 stories which is approximately 40 to 50 feet. If the proposed tower is 100' and it catches on fire how and who is planning on containing this fire that is in an "area that is covered with juniper trees and. vegetation". As stated earlier this proposed tower will be placed 32' from my property. My home is closest to the proposed tower! This creates an enormous fire hazard to my home, animals and the community. Section 18.128.015 The applicant states that the parent parcel is fenced and has numerous juniper trees. The parent parcel has I (15 to 20 ft) juniper tree and 2 small bushes. It also states that the parcel has an existing dwelling and accessory structures. The property has three loafing sheds that did not require permits since they are not permanent structures. Barbara Ellingboe (the homeowner) stated to me that she will be taking those with her when she rents the home out and moves in April of 2013 as well as all the panels used for fencing. Obviously Barbara Ellingboe has not been honest with Mr. Michaels and Mr. Shipman since they are making false statements and are under the impression that the property will have permanent structures on it or they are the ones submitting falsifying testimony to the • hearings officer and the community! The previous owners had numerous horses in the proposed site and that was what you would consider a dry lot with absolutely no vegetation. Currently that property has grass and weeds on site from not being maintained. The existing power pole on the property boundary of the proposed site is 32' to 35' tall not 45' like Mr. Michael states and they are placed 400' to 450' apart. I contacted Central Oregon Electric to confirm the height and placement of these exact poles. Mr. Michaels states that they will be planting 11 juniper trees. The trees will be 5 gallon size trees which in reality will only be a total of 1 to 2 feet tall. How does this compare to a 100' monopole? Not to mention the survival rate of transplanting a juniper trees is slim to none! So when these trees die off will additional trees be planted in attempt to hide this eye sore? Mr. Michaels obviously has not done his research and is continuously setting himself up for failure the only problem with this situation is that we the community in the Alfalfa area will suffer the consequences not him! Mr. Michaels stated that the facility will be quiet "EXCEPT" for the air conditioning fans and running of a future backup emergency generator during power outages and once per week for maintenance. That is not quiet! Again, Mr. Michaels has done "NO RESEARCH" in our community. We have numerous power outages a year. I purchased my home in the country not in an industrial commercial area. This proposed tower will be placed approximately 32 feet from my property. This will effect and disrupt my life the most. Not even Barbara Ellingboe (homeowner) plans on sticking around! Why should I have to tolerate this inconvenience? There are other possible locations that will be more suitable! Lighting: Mr. Michaels states that no lighting will be on the tower but he does not mention if the purposed facility/structures will have lighting. Will they? Visual Impact: Mr. Michaels states that there will be "SOME" visual impact on the adjacent privately owned land but will be "LIMITED" in most cases. My home has all windows in the front. The main reason 1 purchased my home is because of the views. This cell tower will have adverse visual impact on my property and views. Again this proposed tower is 32' from my property so how can Mr. Michaels say that this will affect my visual impact "SOME" or "LIMITED"? Mr. Michaels also states that the views are located to the southwest. I feel he has excluded my residents as my views are to the south, southeast and east as well as the home behind me which is never mentioned. He also states that Alfalfa Market Road is a 55 mph highway and driving public will view the wireless facility quickly. As an owner of several equines we do not transport our animal at 55 mph on roads that have numerous curves. Alfalfa Market Road has an enormous amount of curves and if you drive down this road you will see multiple crosses . placed for individuals that have missed and curves and have passed on. The road may be posted as 55 mph but that is not the speed that most responsible drivers travel. We have Brasada Ranch with an indoor arena, Prineville Reservoir, and a abundance of motorcycle trails in the area. Whether transporting equines, pulling boats or hauling motorcycles, responsible drivers do not travel at 55 mph. Not to mention a number of bicyclist all summer long that are definitely not traveling at 55 mph! Property Values: Mr. Michaels states that the proposed monopole will not have a negative impact on property values. He also states that available wireless communications increase property desirability, especially people that work from home or need to stay in contact with their business. if this is a true statement then why are property owner required to disclose that there may be a possible cell tower in the area? I contacted my realtor for the simple fact that if this tower is passed I will be listing my home and moving out of the area. My realtor said that he will have to disclose this information to a potential buyer and he said this will definitely impact the value of my property. Also, I purchased 5 acres with an arena for a reason and that is to work from home. I work horses in my arena and board horses. This is done from my home. I have great cell and internet service. I am starting to question Mr. Michaels credibility. He makes bogus statements that don't seem to apply to individuals living in the country. Like Mr. Morgan stated our home includes all of our property. I spend more time outside whether it be riding horses, fixing fence or sitting on the hay stack enjoying a cup of coffee, I have chosen to live in the country because I love this lifestyle. We are not city people and do no live in an industrial community! I don't want this monstrosity of a tower to interfere with my country lifestyle! Mr. Michaels states that once the site is operational, it will not create litter. My main concerns are that I board horses and some of these horses are very expensive. During this process 3 individual that Mr. Michaels has hired have trespassed onto my property. I feel that Mr. Michaels has been very inconsiderate and disrespectful. He needs to make sure that there will be No debris on my property, No damage to any portion of my property and No trespassing! My property is not a petting zoo! Be respectful!! As an individual that boards horses and has a variety of other animal I have looked into the research and experiments that have been performed by the institute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and of the Veterinary School of Hanover. It has been proven that livestock (cows, horses and chickens) kept in proximity to a cell phone tower for two years showed increased health problems and behavior anomalies. Some of my boarders have stated that if this proposed tower is approved they will no longer board horses at my home and lease my arena due to the health risks for them as well as their horses. This proposed tower if approved will be restricting and interfering in my rights to earn a living off of my property! My neighbors and friends (The Whites) have recently planted an orchard on the west side of their property. Mrs. White is in the process of retiring and has researched and always • wanted to raise honeybees as a hobby. Studies are discovering that the radiation from cell towers is linked to the killing of bees. Honeybees pollinate crops, plants, fruits and vegetables that do their job replenishing the oxygen in the air. Bee's account for 75% of the worlds seed distribution, this is a serious problem. Mrs. White has worked hard and . now that it is her time to retire and enjoy her hobbies you want to take that away from her? What about my rights? What makes you think that you can come and invade my privacy and interfere in my lifestyle? An abundance of homeowners have offered their property locations as alternative sites, maybe you should take these locations into consideration. I feel that Mr. Michaels has failed to do his research on the proposed site at 25070 Alfalfa Market Road. He has failed to follow all rules and regulations and has shown negligence in this application and this should be an automatic denial! I hope Mr. Michaels, AT&T and Barbara Ellingboe will recognize the imposition they have caused on our families, friends and neighborhood during these holiday seasons. Thank you, Linda Armenta 0 January 4, 2013 0 Dear Honorable Hearings Officer: After reviewing the letter that the applicants submitted on December 21, 2012 in response to the questions raised at the hearing and the letters submitted. I do not see where they have addressed or answered any of my questions asked along with numerous concerns of others that attended the meeting. I question why the applicant/Mark Shipman is only focused on the Armenta and White's residences. We have had a large amount of concerned neighbors in our community that I feel American Tower/Mark Shipman are excluding. It will affect the views of our homes and neighbors in the area as well. American Towcr/Mark Shipman have stated that a "plateau" forms an are around the Elingboe home which is a true statement but as for three of us other neighbors we sit on the so called "plateau" not below it like the Ellingboe property. American Tower/Mark Shipman also states that the "plateau" is approximately ten feet higher in elevation than the proposed site and does contain mature juniper trees that will further screen the proposed facility. If you view the pictures I submitted at the hearing you will see that is a false statement. After viewing the pictures that I submitted and the Whites have submitted you will not see a "plateau" that will screen the proposed facility. American Tower/Mark Shipman states that they are siting the proposed facility in a manner that will have the least visual impact on the fewest number of people in the area. What kind of statement is that when they want to place a tower off Alfalfa Market Road? The majority of people that live in the area drive down Alfalfa Market Road at least twice a day to and from work! As for the tower crane photos taken and submitted and pointed out at the hearing. Obviously some of the pictures have been altered since in one of the pictures our homes look extremely far away and the picture taken off of Juniper Road the trees look enormous. Which they are not! Also the crane "boom" is not the same size of the proposed tower. They seem to leave out the fact that there will be antennas on this tower not just a pole. The picture doesn't tell the story correctly nor do American Tower and Mark Shipman! American Tower/Mark Shipman have not done adequate research of the area and there are numerous sites available to place this tower. I feel that they want to place this tower on the Ellingboe property because it is convenient for them to have access to power lines and phone lines. As seen on the pictures submitted there is no vegetation on the proposed site and they have mentioned that they are willing to move the tower back 100ft. Moving the tower back 100ft is a dry lot currently with horses on it and absolutely no trees or vegetation what so ever on that piece of the property. I submitted a picture of the loafing sheds and horse pens and that is where the tower would be placed. American Tower and Mark Shipman have stated that moving the tower back 100ft will further minimize the visual impact. That is not true. Looking at the map submitted you will see the property lines/boundaries so how can they make a statement like that? This 40 is proof right here that they have not done any research and are just making statements that are definitely not true! Just like Mr. Morgan stated at the hearing. All of our property is our home not just the house. We spend more time outdoors then in our homes. If you look at my property boundaries it will be an eye soar and block my views if it is to be placed on any of Ellingboe property! I request that the hearings officer deny this proposed tower. Thank you, Linda Armenta T'~ wa h u. s t , t ;.r 1 A ~ 1. q. 1+, 77 g , a,~a 2 Y~ ~ r• cC `s SL 6. 7r, A~. Y W r F• d ~a w w le, ,00 r.. T ~ f W 1rY~~ ~'r, V 0 er rl + (ti ` yr, Y~ a n 10 . m 9 1 tl ,F a , Z •4' M1' h. r1: ~ di rr . i °A w t+~ o ~ M 1 a ~ y~' .r , w I~ i h Ln E LU + MO A Q ~ ~ z w r.J 6 < Aft, C W C Low V ~ ~ O Z RZ v ~ _ a~ c ~ cu ` a s. o s Cl) Z cu N c cc Q) O s a V C C L. 4.1 4-0 4-1 0 co U) . 0 •r +r O LU Ri C L C) O *r p~ L ~ QJ ~ to - r. co N ~ C O. C C i. i C C.. Cu 3~ N O O 0 (L) 4-8 W Q 41 i O C law Q is Q O • Q OL Q OL t, Mamma CO) 0 U) aloof C C vdaWa C C QJ 4* Q~ ~L C ; M _ CQ WAS 'Q M O June 13, 2013 Community Development Department Planning Division 117 N Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97708 Re: File # A-13-1/CU-12-15 Dear Planning Committee, I was provided a copy of the "Notice of Public Hearing" for File Number A-13-1/CU-12-15, and fully intend to attend the hearing, as well as speak out against the appeal if given the opportunity. My husband and I just purchased the home located at 25007 Kiwa Ln. (Tax Lot # 3900) which just happens to be within four lots of the proposed cell tower site. In fact, given the location and elevation of our home, we are in a direct line of site of where the tower would potentially be installed, thus completely ruining the 360 degree panoramic view that was the primary reason for us choosing that property over other homes on acreage we had looked at. And for the record, the cell tower proposal wasn't even disclosed to us until we had already begun the purchase transaction. If it hadn't been for some thoughtful new neighbors, we may have never known until now. They approached the listing agent and strongly suggested they provide us with the information. At that point, I immediately raised concern, almost withdrawing my offer before being reassured by my realtor that she had personally spoken with the Sr. Planner for Deschutes Co and he shared with her his feelings on the issue and said he had recommended the request be denied, citing that there were already communication towers in the Alfalfa area. Although not a complete reassurance, I did feel somewhat better about proceeding with the purchase, given the tight timeline we had to find a home due to a job relocation. That and the sellers led us to believe they had it on good authority that it would never pass. To hear that issue is still up for debate is extremely disturbing and has my husband and I very concerned. For the below reasons... 1. Potential health risks to both humans and animals. I've done some online research and found various studies that show that living within 400 meters, 1,148 ft, or X mile, greatly increased the risk of cancer (quadrupled, especially for women), leukemia, high blood pressure, sleep disturbance, headaches, fatigue, damage to cell tissue, DNA, miscarriages, suppression of immune systems, the list goes on. Can anyone in a decision making position reassure us that we are 100% safe from health risks? Including our beloved pets? I know there are several people with livestock in the immediate surrounding area, and if I were them I would be very concerned about the same health risks. Studies admit that the cell towers simply haven't been around long enough to make a final determination, and we have no interest in participating in a study where we weren't given a chance to decide on our own if it was worth the risk. Decrease in home value. I can assure you, had we known there was a good chance this would be approved, we would NOT have purchased this home, and certainly not at the price we paid. We had other options for nicer homes on acreage, but none that afforded us the incredible 360 degree view we currently enjoy. As mentioned previously, the proposed site would have us staring directly at the tower from our living/family room as well as our outdoor deck. This would immediately reduce our resale value, as well as the rest of the homes within clear view and/or risk to human/animal health. Rumor has it the landowner requesting approval doesn't even plan on living in the home if it's approved... plans to move and rent it out. That should also say something about the desire to have a tower so close by. Clearly, it's simply a monetary decision without a second thought of how it would impact the neighbors. In a nutshell... there's a reason so many of us live out in the rural areas on acreage. To enjoy the quiet country atmosphere, enjoy nature/wildlife, a sense of privacy/separation of space... basically everything city life can't offer. And the tradeoff for that often comes at a higher price, along with other rural related challenges. Consider the fact most (if not all) of us are on wells (some of which are shared due to the high cost of drilling so deep to reach water), reside outside of a responding fire district (resulting in higher insurance premiums), have to drive further to city services/shopping, etc.. resulting in higher fuel costs, vehicle wear and tear, etc.. and we voluntarily deal with these issues in exchange for the country life. I implore the committee to DENY this appeal, and put this issue to rest once and for all. We are not at all interested in significantly reducing our homes value, taking away our peaceful unobstructed views, putting ourselves and our pets at greater risk for health issues, and generally adding one more challenge to living in the country. In closing, I'm at a complete loss as to why with so much open land here in Central OR, a proposal would've even been submitted to place a cell tower so close to residents in the first place. Surely there's someone with a large undeveloped piece of land far away from neighborhoods that would be very interested in making some extra income. Thanks in advance for your consideration on this critically important issue. Sincerely, Ernest & Terri Edwards 541-388-9025 Home 541-870-2653 Cell Portland, Oregon -Da ua The City Council of Portland, Oregon, passed a resolution on May 1. 2, 2009, requesting "the FCC to work in cooperation with the FDA and other relevant federal agencies to revisit and update studies on potential health concerns arising from RF wireless emissions in light of the national proliferation of wireless use." Resolution -b the Portland City Council ~er- RESOLUTION No. Request the federal government to update studies on potential health effects of radio frequency wireless emissions in light of significant increases in wireless use. WHEREAS, federal law preempts state and local governments, including the City of Portland, from considering health concerns in the regulation and placement of wireless .facilities, so long as such facilities otherwise comply with applicable federal law; and WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisdiction over non-federal wireless facilities, authorizing and licensing all non-federal devices, transmitters and facilities that generate Radio Frequency (RF) radiation; and WHEREAS, the FCC relies upon federal agencies with health and safety expertise, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which have assigned roles in federal law for monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure; and WHEREAS, the Government Accounting Office in 2001 prepared a report of its investigation into safety concerns related to mobile phones, and concluded that further research into wireless technology is needed, recommending the FDA take the lead in monitoring research results; and WHEREAS, the FCC in 2003 last updated guidelines for human exposure to .RF electromagnetic fields from wireless facilities, based primarily on recommendations of other federal agencies after reviews of prior scientific literature related to RF biological effects, primarily from the 1990s; and WHEREAS, a survey released in May 2009 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that for the first time the number of households in the U.S. with only a cell phone exceeds the number of households in the U.S. with only a landline phone; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Portland City Council requests the FCC to work in cooperation with the FDA and other relevant federal agencies to revisit and update studies on potential health concerns arising from RF wireless emissions in light of the national proliferation of wireless use; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council Clerk shall cause a copy of this Resolution to be sent to all members of the FCC, to the FDA Commissioner, and to all members of the Oregon Congressional Delegation. Adopted by the Council: Commissioner Amanda Fritz May 12, 2009 Gary Blackmer Auditor of the City of Portland By Deputy TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 1.37, 174, 176 (1803) In the Supreme Court decision quoted above, the Court demonstrated that not all laws passed by Congress are in fact legal. This means that if Congress fails to. keep within the bounds of the Constitution, the repugnant laws so enacted can and must be challenged. The Telecommunications Act has a notable probable violation of our Constitution. There is a provision of that bill that bars local governments from banning or restricting cellular telephone towers because of radiation-associated health hazards. This violates the tenth amendment's protection of the rights and powers of the States from federal intrusion, and also, illegally prevents cities and municipalities from exercising their rights and responsibilities to protect the health and well-being of their constituents. State and local governments have not only the right, but the obligation, to limit services--be it bars, pawn shops or (in Nevada) brothels. Cellular communications is but another service that can ruin property values and neighborhood esthetics. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, to "actively seek and support federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that infringe upon the authority of local governments to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the health and environmental effects of these facilities." AGN. NO. MOTION BY SUPERVISORS ZEV YAROSLAVSKY AND MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH June 2, 2009 There is an ongoing debate within the scientific community and among governing bodies throughout the world regarding how thoroughly the long-term health effects of low-frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency emissions are understood. In particular, questions have been raised regarding how well the existing regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission protect more vulnerable populations such as school-aged children, and how well they protect against the cumulative effect of radio-frequency emissions on people who live or work in close proximity to multiple cellular facilities. Unfortunately, Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents local governments, including the County of Los Angeles, from opposing the placement of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental or health effects of radio-frequency emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emissions. In addition, the California Public Utilities Code unfairly limits the authority of local governments to regulate wireless facilities in public rights of way. As long as questions exist as to the adequacy of these federal regulations, local MOTION MOLINA RIDLEY-THOMAS) YAROSLAVSKY ANTONOVICH KNABE governments should have the ability to include a consideration of the health and environmental effects of these facilities when deciding whether or not to approve the construction or modification of a cellular communications facility. The County should also have expanded discretion to decide how, when and where cellular facilities should be sited within the road right of way due to the unique aesthetic and safety issues that these facilities raise. WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board of Supervisors instruct the County's legislative advocates to actively seek and support federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that infringe upon the authority of local governments to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the health and environmental effects of these facilities, and to submit comments on the National Broadband Policy in furtherance of these policy goals prior to the June 8, 2009 comment deadline. WE FURTHER MOVE that the Board of Supervisors instruct the County's legislative advocates to actively seek and support state legislation that would give local governments greater flexibility to regulate the placement of cellular facilities within the road right of way given the unique aesthetic and safety issues that these facilities raise. BS S:/Motions/Cell Phone Leg AGN. NO. 3 MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS JUNE 2, 2009 RELATED TO ITEM #3 While local planning agencies should have the authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities, such agencies should be positioned to do so based on the most protective standards and guidelines that address the health impacts of this infrastructure. However, diverging guidelines have been promulgated for limiting human exposure to radio-frequency radiation worldwide, leading to a persistent and publicly expressed lack of confidence in radiofrequency-exposure standards. The rationales adopted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers are divergent, and the Federal Communication Commission's adopted limits are substantially less protective than the standards of many of the individual nations within Europe, Asia and other regions of the world. As our communities become increasingly more reliant on wireless technology, it is incumbent upon this Board to call for the continued analysis and critique of the health impacts of telecommunications towers. I, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board of Supervisors: Instruct the County's legislative advocates to actively seek and support federal legislation that would direct the Federal Communications Commission to pursue a comprehensive global analysis of best practices and scientific evidence in order to update their existing standards and to adequately measure the health impacts of telecommunications towers. S:WIRT Motions\Related to Agenda Item 3, Telecommunications Towers.doc MOTION MOLINA RIDLEY-THOMAS YAROSLAVSKY ANTONOVICH KNABE My Story Two years ago, my husband and I bought a house in the southern California high desert in order to escape the microwave bombardment in the beach area of San Diego. Our previous beach residence is located at the focal point of 3 surrounding cell towers, and is surrounded by numerous wifi transmissions and military "frequency fences" on all sides. For years I was getting sicker and sicker from the accumulated EMF. I also became so sensitive to cell phones after 8 years of use, that I could no longer hold one up to my head without getting dizzy. Hopefully I have avoided developing a brain tumor. Now I am opposing the proposed erection of a cell tower 1,100 feet away from our new home in a tiny town of 300 people at the edge of the Anza Borrego Desert State Park-- the largest state park in California. A certain proportion of people are highly sensitive to microwave EMF, which may be due to previous EMF overload, such as cell phone use. or wifi exposure. Now, doctors are agreeing that cell phone use is causing brain tumors. Wildlife is also at risk according to a number of scientific studies. As you may know, President Clinton signed the Telecom Act in 1996, long before anyone knew that there may be harmful effects from cell towers. The Telecomm Act includes a small paragraph that states that no one can oppose a cell tower based on environmental (health) issues. The original establishment of a cell tower grid was convenient for military purposes, and now telecom companies have carte blanche to do whatever they want without opposition. Although large groups of people are now fighting proposed cell towers all over America, they are not allowed to mention potential health effects to the city planning commissions who must approve these towers, or else the telecom companies threaten to sue the cities. And so all over America large groups of people are opposing cell towers based on any other reason they can find. The scientific evidence from all corners of the world is mounting geometrically regarding the harmful effects of towers. Also, the utility companies are now carpeting the country with "smart meters, that use wifi on phone poles to take hourly readings of utility usage. These meters are yet another bombardment of microwave emissions and are unregulated by city planning commissions. After months of research, l am convinced that the issue of microwave/EMF overload may well be the greatest threat this planet is currently facing. With the advent of memory intensive "smart phones", the proliferation of cell towers is increasing geometrically. And roughly half of cell phone users are under 20 years of age. The thinness of the skulls of young people makes them much more susceptible to brain tumors. And the telecom company ads these days are ruthlessly aimed at children. In researching the harmful effects of cell towers, I have accumulated a great deal of background material which I have assembled into this website in hopes that the world be better informed regarding the effects of microwave radiation. I also believe that the U.S. government will chose to protect its citizens by reviewing unbiased biological. research, repealing the Telecommunications Act, and replacing dangerous microwave technology with fiber-optics. Sincerely, Lisa 4 ~r✓i~r - r=_.lL i t C::.:'i~~„~ci"~ ,~'S, To get involved in a bigger way please visit the Clout Now website ( http://www.cloutnow.org/ ) and sign their petition. 18.128.340(B)(2) The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas on existing monopoles in the area to be served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co- location within the area to be served. 18.128.340(6)(5) In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 1 I I ,Ty o o a> ~ o. ~ w • D ~ U N O y o ~ y D R. U v t-. N N H ~ O r cl b a~ U :r ~ O ~ i 0 ~ D U U A w, U ~ C, U O cq q O i N f, ~ O O w ! v O C~ ~ U a, ~ ~ U UJ ~U7 4~ d9 N ~ G O 7 o p G N 'O b 5, w I I ~ yy U 6J ~ y I BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for a New Wireless Telecommunications Facility (Alfalfa BD11) FILE NUMBER: A-13-1/CU-12-15 DECLARATION OF RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER KAREN SULLIVAN New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Kace 1 The following comments are provided in support of New Cingular Wireless' ("AT&Tf) Application for a 2 Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless communications facility in Alfalfa, Oregon. My comments will 3 be divided into the following sections: 4 1. Qualifications as Radio Frequency Engineering Expert 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2. Improvements in AT&T's Services 3. Coverage Objectives 4. Determination of Search Rings 5. Alternate Site Analysis 1. QUALIFICATIONS AS RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERING EXPERT My name is Karen Sullivan. I am currently employed by AT&T as a Professional-Radio Access Network ("RAN") Engineer in Bend, Oregon. I have been in this position for 7 years. Prior to my current position with AT&T, I have been employed as: Position Company Dates Professional RAN Engineer AT&T/Edge Wireless 2006 - Present Technical Consultant to FAA K.A. Sullivan Consulting 2003 -2006 Senior Systems Engineer Axiom Resource Mgt. 2001 -2003 Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 1 Alfalfa (BD11) 1 Position Company Dates 2 Various engineering positions Including: FCC, MCI, 1984 - 1999 3 Motorola, V-Comm, and 4 ARINC Research 5 1 have special training and experience in the design and management of radio frequency 6 spectrum for wireless communications networks like AT&T's Personal Communications Service 7 network in Deschutes County. I have over 25 years of experience in radio frequency analysis, 8 engineering, and design, including wireless communications radio frequency network design and 9 maintenance, and the design of new wireless communications sites for new networks as well as sites to 10 fill in gaps in coverage for existing networks. 11 My current responsibilities at AT&T include the design of AT&T's radio frequencies in the Pacific 12 Northwest. 13 My formal professional education includes: 14 Education Institution Dates 15 Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Rutgers University 1984 16 Masters of Business Administration Rutgers University 2001 17 18 2. IMPROVEMENTS IN AT&T'S SERVICE - SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE 19 AT&T has determined that it must improve the quality of its wireless communications services in 20 and around Alfalfa as follows: 21 1. Indoor and outdoor coverage in the Alfalfa community and Alfalfa Market Road east of Alfalfa 22 where there is a significant gap in coverage today. 23 2. Indoor and outdoor coverage around Highway 20 south of Alfalfa. 24 Please see Exhibit 1, Pape 4 attached hereto for a visual depiction of the current quality of service 25 in these areas. These areas include well-traveled state highways and local roadways, commercial 26 enterprises and year-round residences. Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 2 Alfalfa (BD11) 1 3. AT&T'S COVERAGE OBJECTIVES 2 AT&T is seeking to establish a new wireless telecommunications site in this part of Alfalfa to provide 3 high quality, indoor and outdoor coverage in these areas. 4 AT&T's coverage objectives for this proposed site include: 5 1. The Alfalfa community, and Alfalfa Market Road for several miles east and west of the 6 proposed site, where there is a significant gap in AT&T's coverage toady. 7 2. Highway 20, south and southwest of Alfalfa. 8 Please see Exhibit 1. Page 5 attached to AT&T's application for a visual depiction of the desired 9 coverage areas. AT&T does not have reliable coverage in most of these areas and has determined 10 that it must provide high quality service in this geographic area. 11 4. DETERMINATION OF SEARCH RINGS 12 Once coverage objectives have been established for a proposed cell site, I identified the geographic 13 area where the site may be located in order to provide service in the desired coverage area. This 14 geographic area for the proposed site is called a "search ring". When designing search rings for 15 antenna sites in a high quality wireless communications network, I must keep several objectives in 16 mind, including: 17 1. Coverage. The antenna site must be located in an area where the radio frequency 18 broadcasts will provide adequate coverage within the significant gap in coverage. I must 19 take into consideration the coverage objectives for the site as well as the terrain in and 20 around the area to be covered. Since radio frequency broadcasts travel in a straight line 21 and diminish as they travel further away from the antennas, it is generally best to place an 22 antenna site near the center of the desired coverage area. However, in certain cases, the 23 search ring may be located away from the center of the desired coverage area due to the 24 existing coverage, the surrounding terrain, or other features which might affect the radio 25 frequency broadcasts like buildings or sources of electrical interference. Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 3 Alfalfa (BD11) 1 2. Clutter. AT&T's antennas must "clear the clutter" in the area. The radio frequencies used 2 in AT&T's systems are adversely affected by trees, buildings, and other natural and man- 3 made obstacles. AT&T's radio frequencies do not penetrate mountains, hills, rocks or metal, 4 and its radio frequencies are diminished by trees, brick and wood walls, and other 5 structures. Therefore, AT&T's antennas must be installed above the "clutter" in order to 6 provide high quality communications services in the desired coverage areas. In addition, if 7 the local code requires us to accommodate additional carriers on the structure, the structure 8 must be even higher in order to allow the other carriers' antennas to clear the clutter as well. 9 3. Call Handoff. The antenna site must be located in an area where the radio broadcasts 10 from this site will allow seamless call handoff with adjacent sites. "Call handoff" is a feature 11 of a wireless communications system where the system will allow an ongoing telephone 12 conversation to continue uninterrupted as the user travels from the coverage area of one 13 antenna site into the coverage area of an adjacent antenna site. This requires coverage 14 overlap for a sufficient distance and/or period of time to support the mechanism of the 15 handoff. 16 4. Interference. The antenna site must be located in an area that will avoid creating 17 interference with adjacent sites where a large number of equally strong signals overload the 18 telephone's capability of distinguishing the correct signal (also called "Pilot Pollution 19 Interference" or "PPI"). If there is too much overlapping signal, the system and phone will 20 experience interference or noise, resulting in: (a) dropped calls, (b) blocked outgoing calls, 21 (c) blocked incoming calls, (d) coverage gaps, and (e) decreased system capacity. 22 5. Quality of Service. Users of wireless communications services want to use their services 23 where they live, work, commute and play, including when they are indoors. AT&T's 24 coverage objectives include the ability to provide indoor coverage in areas where there are 25 residences, businesses and indoor recreational facilities. Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 4 Alfalfa (BD11) 1 6. Radio Frequencies used by System. The designs of wireless communications systems 2 will vary greatly based upon the radio frequencies that are used by the carrier. If the carrier 3 uses radio frequencies that are in the 850 MHz to 950 MHz range, the radio signals will 4 travel further and will penetrate buildings better than the radio frequencies in the 1900 MHz 5 band. As a result, the wireless communications systems that use the lower radio frequencies 6 will need fewer sites than the wireless communications systems that use the higher radio 7 frequencies. AT&T's system in Deschutes County uses only frequencies in the 1900 MHz 8 band, so AT&T's system requires more sites in order to achieve the same coverage that is 9 provided by the carriers which use the 850 MHz to 950 MHz frequency band. 10 7. Land Use Classifications. AT&T's ability to construct a cell site on any particular property 11 is affected by Oregon state law and Deschutes County regulations. Under Oregon law, 12 AT&T is not entitled to construct a wireless communications site on Exclusive Farm Use 13 ("EFU") land if a site may be constructed on non-EFU land. AT&T's search rings take these 14 laws and regulations into consideration. 15 AT&T's coverage propagation software systems use these and other factors (type of antenna; antenna 16 tilt, etc.) to predict the coverage that will be provided by the proposed site. 17 1 have determined that due to the high proportion of EFU land in and around Alfalfa, AT&T must 18 focus its site search efforts on the RR10 properties around the site that is proposed in AT&T's 19 application in this proceeding. A copy of the search ring was included in the record below. 20 5. ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS 21 1 analyzed the feasibility of constructing a wireless telecommunications facility on the proposed site, 22 and on five other locations near the proposed site. Please see Exhibit 1 for the propagation maps for 23 the alternate site analysis. The projected coverage in all of the propagation maps in Exhibit 1 show 24 what I would call "reliable rural coverage areas" which is larger than reliable coverage areas from a 25 similar site in a densely populated urban environment. In a densely populated urban environment, the 26 coverage area is smaller due to the larger number of users who are competing for available bandwidth Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 5 Alfalfa (BD11) 1 from the proposed site. When there are a larger number of users competing for available bandwidth, 2 the cell site automatically turns down its power levels to manage the demand on the bandwidth at the 3 site. In the rural Alfalfa area, we expect better quality of service over a larger geographic area due to 4 the lower demand on bandwidth at the proposed site. 5 In summary, all 5 of the proposed and alternate sites would provide acceptable coverage in the 6 desired coverage area because all of the sites are relatively close to each other in the RR10 zone, and 7 the elevation of the local terrain does not vary to a great degree. A 100' tall tower on any of the $ proposed or alternate sites would provide adequate service in the desired coverage area. 9 Approximately 27 square miles of reliable coverage is predicted to be added with the new site. Please 10 see Exhibit 2 for a topographical map which shows the approximate locations for the alternate sites, 11 and the elevations of the surrounding properties. 12 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Oregon that the foregoing is true 13 and correct. DATED this June 13, 2013 at Bend, Oregon. Karen Sullivan Declaration of Radio Frequency Engineer Karen Sullivan Page 6 Alfalfa (BD11) Document Reproduces POOrIv (Archived) ~ftwft Ln U. U TMI L r~~J r-I Q W a-J `OW ca ca aj ra v U U Cf5 C f6 O U a-J C CL 4-j O O as L v 0 U fQ 4-- O to Gn 0 Z DoGument Reproduces Poorly (Archived), OOMNM%% cn L.L.. U L (1) s 4ma F0 PC N Q CU 4-J 4-J V) m 0 w L c~ c~ c~ Q bi) 0 V) 0 +j ai to L v 0 U cn ai q.l Q Document R6pr es Poorly (Archived) xi i r L a s r-0 oomm1 R:T LL u I m Q a CCU V) 4i CA a~ CL U U f6 m N 0 c .L- 0. 0 0 f6 0 v W Q r~~v t i «."'~a .-i 4 or's i'~ r F r r rti °gllF", I MA •w ~ 4v e, 46 cY) Ii'.ty. , ►r,('~► 1 40 1 /bi r1 ~•~,':Jr~ ~f~ y.... rY. -~.~J~ J „_.~"~'~~9aa+ r • r4!'..~ ,.r ri+~~--~rr: r.~.-..~.~' , As L M .~f, ~ k co n F r 41 44 1* a 41*6 AbAlm. SAN oww' r• F ;2T ...".c.y1Fy}plr µ^n ' - T, a V r zik or -r + W ~r rd Mr b~ T A I ° ~F T` ..1 "'I i' /r 'A w ; .G:';{;~oF r~ye• Pik`?'. 1 41' y w ilk yN, ~ •WF t ~ ~ m„ ~ ~ yr AA" t ~ ~ « ~ T ~ ~I~. Y ne ,.5 ljl~ ~dtl 11 r "'ties"~,ALa~,.'r. ~W _ ~ 'M ~o '.7~ x.il;~ ~d '4 LL w N k* '3 -:~~~~w~ ~J`;1 A"u~ "rid ~4 " 40 "A Ilk r, til'~k AR, N .a T.Y^- J. A; io. w ~d t 1Y `yip r r W "r"" o W # . ` ~ ~'I ~,dl'~ c ; ~ ark ta!!" , ~ ~ ~ y 1 . 40# f f ~A . f s~ o Alp n, R Cf) V 'wit, f, 40 31 AlO Pr- iw, Mr, *'_y~ ~fA, ksArr.. 40 0' Vii, 1 R. r r y LLJ p b ! a A d, a •3r N ?~F _ Jr~~ 71d \w~-~ wSi• N ►r" - ~ s i x ' y,~ 'fir": ~ • = r, l .T♦ ap* f ,S^ ~1....y M~ 'a' M cO R 1 t R i,fr• rtby A~y*~ S l~ _ _ b A F iy " IM>Yi~ q #r i.i,R r7' i T rl ~,y ,rX ( ~"R I t:-Ri r ~w y~ _ +~y,' r. ~r y_., R - ~t „n,- i- 1 v ? A ~ R'~ '9 TR" Z 1.,. Q..r '+s 3+k.'.yA,rr" lk.:a ,MU h,: r2,M ep~ • ~ a ~ :d' L r oc y . ` Y ~r MAY '~y r y k T I.El w^h r .A! ; is '.~r u~71,, I LL 1a a d4 t co S11 to M J~ t~ ~'n~ a 1. « '1M" I N • Cn n::wy~g~ 70 N^• * Vie, ~ w ~v~ a Y N 'lf Ion 16 -pip A! y &Y " * t _ aM rw Q r' rrFr3. .r 64 J ~6r ~ y"~~'R ~~'4rr `~~^~i. r 'l~~ilt'A~* ~i Y'td~ E •+r ~„~i ~ ~M • ~ ^I`' A ,l ~ ~ Q CIF 41F• app • _ H h3 1 ~1 y_ -^N ia' JTIr~L 7' w'r ^ 1. M1:' nk T ~`R' ~ ~j ~ • r!'` r ~ ~ yTth N' rr~1W y + 1. f Mtix , i ~ rp . 1i1 .F.. 1 1. fr ~ M V e l oj~ "tit 799E .c ~ y 1 Fyn,'.', wg Olk W A day ~ m6b6, q d -t 2. earth miles'', km, 3 miles 2 ar . 'Ch km 3 z CL (A PS a.+ v ®CC L A 4 / !YSr b ~ ~ a, m 4 c' { ~ y` JYrs ~ .11 } . r t r. b ~ t d Yx. i ~ a I Y h g m. r a a zivu x Ln N N N M c-I Q O Z v LL C 7 O V N OJ 7 t V 7J O N d Y Y O O LL O '-I Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) c-I m Lr) V CC3 r°-'9 2 U C) 0 6 CL z - 4-1 W Q) 0 4-1 U V) (0 U L9 <C r~ •p N O V 4- cto Q 4- 0 -C c o UO o > cu . 4 V ~ O ago o pC V • (~3,) to a ~ V o O 4-J :3 4-a UO cn O -0 V 0 txo w +j o~ (3) i O i L 4■ c~ a~ ~ Q o cn u •L co V E O ~ E o s L +j o c o L V O ~ N > 4-J V Z ~ L L r cu > 4-J ~ O L 4- V o O C: - V m • 4-J O L• O o M O O V N ~o Q DCC Mum- u^ C nLn W . o oc CC LL o w o oc r~ 4J a) 0 oc OAS 0 O CU O n o O o ~ W Lf) m +j cn N I O C: O 4=J +-J m m a U m O U Q t to a~ 0 1 O 1 a a~ O Q O a~ N Q I W a~ 4-J O M 4-J O 1 N aA c6 O V L L V 0 c.i 0 m m m w +a m 2 m m Q t1A C 0 -Fo N to 0 U L4M m C m U to ill L4n Q) f~3 V O re L CCU r m 4- C't3 d O n O Ln N L 0 d-+ 0 0 0 0 w 4--+ L c~ _ M C[ U hD C Q) 0 -C +J m o 0 Q1 CLO r- (10 o +1 o L ~ Q ~E o aU o ~ L ao 0 v c ~ U 0 L ~ O N _ ~ Q~ r-I W 4-J ~ V 0 cr. J W co 0 73 0 ,j. N +j V) a 3 a 0 0 ca 0 (U L 4-J ~ Q U to ~ C ~ 0 a L L CQ U a Cu 0 = U +a 4-J a O tko CAA ~V) L ~ a > i- 0 0 U a a Ln 4-1 C u co ..C f° a V a M o o CL C ~ a 4- L f~ a o Q 0 r-i W Q a) tio c O O O %4- 0 a) "-J m 4' Ln a (D C L N 76 _N c~ Q O U U Ca C f0 N O L CL 4-0 O to L Q~ O U fQ 4-- O txo Z N f~ O ►no N d-J O W • rr~ L O L Rf O t xo L O 4- O m T3 f0 O w a-J v L CR 4F- Q tto c O m i-J V) O N a-J O 4-+ to c~ L 0 V) a~ ao ~ L O to N v :Lj S2 V9 t~ a-J CL C a (3j U ~ U l1Y ~ T3 4- O fCf L -A I .N U 0 V m m Q 0 O Ln r4 m a m c m u DJ V O O V) L W E O O .r V O O L L a a L a~ +-J LA . O OC Ise L m 02 W V .j L O C~ cr L O C"m Mo a~ a-J 4- O a~ c~ V CU O oc . a OJ L c~ 0 L. O 4-J CL V V O mo O 3: V) c O c~ V O L Jc +-J O OJ L L V N 4-J tI~ O O MO O c shk t!~ O CL L. CL I.J.. w a~ V State' Land (DSL) Site 1 r x.-r (OTHER 1- SCF 5) I~ 1 " I! t ti dI,"Ps 9a J y;y r a The rarv lclad silo: is loealecl near the (.-'l C' potiver° lines. The poles ore ahow 65 ' lull and tivill help to break, up the vislrcrl impael of the proposed 100 monopole loccaed nearhv. I? vielvfioln east to l1'es/ Of thep01ver lines and inn ck ip Uf nely t01ver. !'iov fi,om near ilie site uorl iowards the east. This is a 'vpical view in every direction. View of ille sir`L' cilml loivcrrc~,.s l17c2 t70i-d? - 1OtS Of 7-06-1f.' /,l"7G '7^(.']]'?(JY?~ (.t77( C7'O.'S (Id'E'!" , "(/llr.. (1I e v,<..4-on an at Elk Vietiv is lawcirds the Fast 91 State Land Site 2 (DSL) (OTHER 2 - SCF 3) f M'. The 7'(nv lcra?Cl she k located near the CEC poi er 11i es q R('aYnond Oregon. The p()lE'.4 are about 65' tall card will heY in hr aik up the visual iraipac•t cif thcpr°oposed l 10' monopole located neL rbJ". 12 ,1 vie w fi orrl cast to west o f WIC power- liru's 6110 Mock lip of'rtetiv totiver . ,Ag Y'b 1 ~~Gn' ,.~yr A~R+F,AMMe.. A .~d . Y '?e ~h:')~ r?1'" ~/ll, .C r'"$.dP7 C~(l~i'T'd >>7" ~_['r✓If I I U/ - l J7L ,Yl 7C _ r ! r '7 G 11"7(Si'7C hilt.`,'. I/ie1~' frnnz 77ec~r the site and totivc/nA the southi-vest. State Land Site 3 (DSL) (OTHER 3 - SCF 4) 1,-J &J &J 12 View o. AIt 94 CUld tObV01-dS the 12()1°th. 3 i fix ~ briciv lovvards the ast ~77- 77" -7 T, M r JAI, At View Jivin near the site card towards the s'outhwest