Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 10/17/2017 - Information From Delynn Coldiron Re: Item #12 - Consideration Of Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition Of Permitted Use Request1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:41 PM To: Andreas Ambuhl Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: TURNBERRY CELL TOWER Good afternoon Andreas - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Andreas Ambuhl [mailto:andreasambuhl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:10 PM To: City Leaders; Turnberrycelltower@gmail.com Cc: Wade Troxell; Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez; Ken Summers; Kristin Stephens; Ross Cunniff; Gerry Horak Subject: TURNBERRY CELL TOWER Ladies and Gentlemen: Allow me to make the following points about the proposed TURNBERRY CELL PHONE TOWER: • First and foremost – a cell phone tower within a residential community simply is inconsistent with the image of a residential area. It is especially inconsistent with the recreational, look-after-nature and be-part-of-nature image that Fort Collins is famous for. Plainly it is inconsistent with the city’s image. • The proposed site is residential and thus requires a WAIVER for a commercial cell phone tower. • FACT: Installing a wireless base station and tower in a residential area will lead to a deterioration in the quality of life that we have come to treasure here in Fort Collins. It does not fit in with the General Plan, and it simply does not fit into the zoning requirements. • The cell tower, plain or disguised, is a visual blight, and sets an unwelcomed precedent for our Fort Collins neighborhoods. How many more will follow? What will happen to our parks, our views, and our natural scenery? 2 • The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2009 sided with the City of Palos Verdes Estates and its residents' right to oppose a wireless tower based on aesthetics: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/10/fake_trees_will_not_grow_in_pve.php and http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ugly-telecoms26-2009oct26,0,5439620.story • Public Safety – Fire, Fall Hazard, and Attracting Crime o Routine maintenance has lead to fires, and high winds have toppled poles.  The Malibu, CA fires, according to an ABC news report, were caused by utility poles "overburdened by new cellular phone gear." Power poles that should have withstood winds of 92 mph snapped in the 50mph hour winds"  In addition, back-up batteries for wireless facilities can be made of hazardous substances. Read this June 2008 Board of Appeals Report that addresses this serious concern that residents raised there about the dangers and hazards of lead back-up batteries: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/zah/pdf/reports/s-2709.pdf. Also read this article, http://www.city.waltham.ma.us/lepcweb/EPAinfo/EPA_Lead-Acid_Battery_fax_sheet.htm. Here are more articles about the hazards and dangers these batteries pose: http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html and http://www.calicorp.com/articles/battery- advisory.html. • In spite of monumental scientific studies and research regarding the harmful effects of wireless technologies on our bodies, it is “illegal” to cite health reasons for preventing the erection of a cell phone tower due to the FCC’s Telecommunications Act of 1996. HOWEVER, there is still a perceived health risk due to cell-towers near residential areas. In fact, the EPA, which participated in FCC’s exposure standard setting, explains the limitations and uncertainty of the FCC’s adopted standard in protecting human health. In a July 16, 2002 letter, EPA’s Norbert Hankin, states clearly : “I believe it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures (exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years). The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence….” • This PERCEIVED health risk is directly related to lower residential property values. In fact there are multiple studies proving exactly this: o The Bond and Hue – Proximate Impact Study  The Bond and Hue Study conducted in 2004 involved the analysis of 9514 residential home sales in 10 suburbs. The study reflected that close proximity to a CELL TOWER reduced price by 15% on average. o The Bond and Wang – Transaction Based Market Study  The Bond and Wang Study involved the analysis of 4283 residential home sales in 4 suburbs between 1984 and 2002. The study reflected that close proximity to a CELL TOWER reduced the price between 20.7% and 21%. o The Bond and Beamish – Opinion Survey Study  The Bond and Beamish Study involved surveying whether people who lived within a 100’ of a tower would have to reduce the sales price of their home. 38% said they would reduce the price by more than 20%, 38% said they would reduce by only 1%-9%, and 24% said they would reduce their sale price by 10%-19%. o Experts, Courts and News  “As a licensed real estate broker with over 30 years of experience, it is my professional opinion that the installation of a Cellular Tower can significantly reduce the value of neighboring residential properties.” – Lawrence Oxman, Licensed Real Estate Broker o US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. o Phone Masts (Cell Towers) Blight House Sales [Article Link] • The proponents of erecting the Turnberry Cell Tower state that there is a COVERAGE GAP and lack of cell phone signal near and around our RESIDENTIAL area. o When reviewing almost every single wireless providers cell coverage map, that GAP simply does not exist. In fact quite the contrary can be concluded by looking at VERIZON, SPRINT, T-Mobile, and many other provider’s web sites and coverage maps. Residents and CITY OFFICIALS need to know: There is a burden of proof to be met by the applicant that a truly “significant” gap in coverage actually exists in the location where the applicant proposes to install a wireless facility. • NOISE AND NUISANCE • Who wants a noisy cell tower next to your home? We don't want to live near a cell tower base station. It is an industrial facility. 3 In fact, if you're wondering what it's like to live next to and near a T-Mobile cell phone antenna, and all the lights and noise that come with it, listen to Mr. Ken Howard speak before the Glendale's City Council members about his 24/7 experience: Maintenance can occur at any hour of the day or night! Noisy, spot lights etc etc etc. • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCaOazQauvc&feature=player_embedded* • Many more reasons exist why this is a bad idea, however, some of the arguments I get from proponents of cell phone towers are: o You use your cell phone, why are you against a tower?  When I use my cell phone, I do so voluntarily and temporarily. When a Cell Tower is placed in such close proximity to my neighborhoods, our children, our wives, our husbands and our parents are exposed to continuous and prolonged RF emissions 24/7. The studies on this level and proximity of exposure are clear and conclusive. o I don’t have signal where I live, there is a coverage gap.  I use Verizon, my wife uses Sprint and neither of us have issues with cell phone reception where we live in Maple Hill Subdivision. If you have trouble with your signal, options exist to switch services. Landlines are also an option. There is no need for a cell tower due to some residents’ alleged and unproven lack of coverage. o How do I call 911 in an emergency?  How did you call 911 prior to cell phones? Most residents, if not all, currently have a wireless router in their home, which negates the alleged signal gap and will allow 911 calls to be placed even if a gap exists. If the concern is so grave that it causes panic in your household, then get a landline. How can we justify a cell tower for an entire area if only a handful of people are alleging signal gaps? • I have simply not heard any other arguments in favor of a cell tower other than the ones cited above. I have however, heard 100s of arguments against. And whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is over 20 years old at this point and in dire need of revision, allows it or not, scientifically the verdict is clear on cell tower RADIATION and the effects that radiation has on our immune system. o https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html o https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html • Many more studies and links exist to scientifically prove RF to be a carcinogen and the implied effects of Real property values, quality of life for a community and city, and the loss in tax revenue for cities due to mass exodus after installation. • Lastly, the following are a couple of links to web sites which describe why living in Fort Collins is so rewarding. I think it is in the city council’s best interest to up hold those values described, otherwise soon, Fort Collins will be described as the city of unlimited views…so long as you don’t mind a cell tower in the way, or in your backyard…. Make the right call for the citizens of this tremendous city. https://www.newscastic.com/news/15-reasons-why-fort-collins-is-the-greatest-city-in-america- 1090988/ https://livability.com/co/fort-collins/real-estate/why-fort-collins-co-is-one-of-the-best-places-to-live https://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/24-reasons-fort-collins-colorado-is-the-greatest-city-on- ear?utm_term=.pkN2qVzp9k#.qaMMm3lP1w “Fort Collins is so idyllic and picturesque, even Walt Disney looked to us as an example.” Oddly enough, none of those sites make any mention of residential cell towers! Andreas M. Ambühl SATCS 4 Denver ARTCC CFI/CFII/MEI Cell: 970.541.4683 “Can You Imagine All I Could Do, If I Did All I Can” 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:34 PM To: Kathy Beck Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Cell Tower by Maple Hill Neighborhood Good afternoon Ms. Beck - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Kathy Beck [mailto:kathy@kathybeck.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:33 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Cell Tower by Maple Hill Neighborhood Hello - Wanted to voice my opinion that I am all for the proposed cell tower by the Country Club/Maple Hill area. The reception in that part of town is very fragmented. My mother lives in the immediate area as well as my children/grandchildren. In the case of an emergency I worry greatly that they will not be able to effectively communicate with emergency personnel. This is a need that will only be increasing as time goes on. Cell towers are a necessity and, like all other “new” buildings, will cease to draw attention once they have been in place for a very short period of time. Please approve this so the families with marginal cell coverage can feel more comfortable in their communities. 2 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:19 PM To: ladychawklat@gmail.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower on Turnberry DND Good afternoon Ms. Heath - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Betsy Heath [ladychawklat@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:53 PM To: Bob Overbeck Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Turnberry I am definitely in favor of the proposed cell tower on Turnberry Road. Unfortunately, I'm not able to attend the city council meeting because I'm out of town...or I would show up and speak up. The one thing I'm disappointed about is the proposed reduction in height of the tower from 60 to 45 feet. As you know, the height of the tower helps to determine the number of carriers that are possible. So reducing the height from 60 to 45 feet will drop the number of possible carriers from 3 to 1. While adding any additional service to our area will be better than nothing, it substantially inhibits the tower's ability to provide a stable wireless infrastructure. Just my two cents.... Thanks for all you do. 2 Sincerely, Betsy Heath Maple Hill subdivision 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:26 PM To: kathrynmcgirr78@gmail.com Cc: Sarah Kane; Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Long Pond Cell Tower - In support DND Good afternoon Ms. McGirr - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com From: Kathryn McGirr [kathrynmcgirr78@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:26 PM To: Bob Overbeck Subject: Long Pond Cell Tower - In support Hello Councilman Overbeck, I have contacted you about this before but thought I would reach out to you one more time before the council meeting tonight. I am one of your constituents and I am in favor, as much of my surrounding neighbors are, of the Long Pond Cell Tower. We have terrible cell coverage in our area and it is only going to get worse as the area expands. The limited coverage poses a danger to those of us in the area. Below are a couple of stories from my neighbors that I promised to pass along and a couple of stories of my own. Thank you for your consideration. This is from Derek Sherlock in Hearthfire: Since my wife and I won't make it to the meeting, and you mentioned you were collecting talking points, I figured I'd share our experience. (I have also emailed this directly to Clay Frickey on the city council.) We live on the west side of the Hearthfire subdivision where, unlike many of our neighbors, we actually do get a limited cellphone signal. It's intermittent and unreliable, and only available from a few places in our house. Back in March of 2 this year, I had to call 911 when my wife had a seizure (she's a brain tumor patient). Luckily, the seizure occurred upstairs and on the west side of our house, so I was able to call 911 without having to leave her unattended. And fortunately the connection held for the duration until paramedics arrived. If it had occurred in another part of the house where the signal is not so reliable, I might have had to leave my seizing wife to go summon help. The consequences may have been disastrous if we'd lived in Maple Hill or parts of Richards Lake, where service is far worse, or non-existent. It is time to solve this long-standing problem once and for all. It's a question of basic public safety, plain and simple. This is from Donn Hopkins in Nedrah Acres: Hello, I sent an email to the Mayor and Council expressing my concern for safety, explicitly in emergencies and/or when landlines fail. I'm disabled and rely more on cell service for safety and medical incidents. I will not be able to attend the meeting. Thanks for your work! And my two stories: 1) I was outside with my kid and neighbors while the kids were playing. We see a little girl (no more than 2) wandering down the street by herself. No adult insight. I can't call 911 because I don't have coverage. I also can't quickly post on Next Door. Luckily about 10 minutes later her older brother comes running out of the house to get her. But we had no way of connecting to try and find her parents. 2) Drive around the lake on country club we come across two loose dogs. They have collars and tags but we don't have cell service to call their owners. We can't call the humane society or again post on Next door. We are getting ready to load the dogs into our car and drive them to the human society (which would throw off our day completely as we were headed to pick our kid up from my dad who had something going on and couldn't easily continue to watch our kid while we figure out what to do). Luckily a neighbor comes out and knows the dogs so we coaxed them back into their yard. But again, luckily. Not having cell service in these two situations was not only inconvenient but could have been dangerous. In this day and age, and with our area exploding in growth, we need cell service in our area. 1 Delynn Coldiron From: Delynn Coldiron Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:40 PM To: susansel@frii.com Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron Subject: RE: Opposed to Long Pond Wireless proposal Good afternoon Ms. Selkirk - Thank you for your email to City Council regarding the Long Pond Cell Tower proposal -- a development project that is currently in the development review process. The specific approval process under consideration now for this project is referred to as an “Addition of a Permitted Use” and the decision on the pending application will be made by the City Council based on the evidence presented to the Council in connection with the Council hearing now rescheduled for Tuesday, October 17. In the case of an “Addition of a Permitted Use” decision, Councilmembers are required to impartially decide the application based on the evidence and testimony presented for or at the hearing, and as a result Councilmembers are required to avoid contacts about this item with interested parties outside of the hearing process. Your email will be included in the Council’s packet regarding this item for all to consider in connection with the hearing. Although Councilmembers are interested in hearing your opinion about the merits of the project, it is not appropriate for Council to discuss your concerns outside of the hearing process. I encourage you to participate in the Council’s hearing on this matter in order to ensure that your concerns are heard. Thank you for your interest and participation in this matter. Delynn Coldiron City Clerk City of Fort Collins 970-416-2995 decoldiron@fcgov.com -----Original Message----- From: susansel@frii.com [mailto:susansel@frii.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:18 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Opposed to Long Pond Wireless proposal To the Fort Collins City Council, I live in close proximity to the proposed "Long Pond Wireless" tower (or "Turnberry" wireless proposal). I am very much against this proposed development. I think it will look hideous, will totally dominate the landscape, and will reduce our property values. I urge you go vote to DENY the AUP exception needed for this proposal. Surely there are other ways to provide decent wireless coverage, rather than destroying an already-existing neighborhood atmosphere. 2 Granting the AUP would also create a propensity toward other similar projects in just about ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD in the city. Please vote to DENY the AUP for the wireless tower proposal. Sincerely, Susan Selkirk