Friday, August 9, 2013

Comments on Radio Tower Application

Comments:

Detailed version:
A grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the greater public interest.  The radio station does not broadcast in the English but in a language spoken by less than 5% of the local community.  The target audience is not even US based.

The towers are in blatant violation of local zoning height restrictions for structures in:
Rural Residential (20.32.400) – 35 foot height restriction
Point Roberts Transitional Zone District (20.37.400)  - 25 foot height restriction. 
Point Roberts Special District (20.72) – maximum 45 foot height w/ restrictions.

Proposed setbacks don’t even match zoning that does allow for increased height (such as industrial), where setbacks must be increased one foot for each foot of height above 35 feet.

This ‘conditional use permit’ is linked with 20.82 Public Utilities (again, what public service is being provided?)  which does not over-ride the above height restrictions and offers no siting priorities. It is not associated with 20.13 personal wireless communications which does offer siting priorities: 

Siting Priorities. Listed in descending order with the highest priority first:
(a) Collocated attached antennas on nonresidential buildings and structures including existing wireless communications towers in nonresidential related districts.
(b) Collocated attached antennas on nonresidential buildings and structures including existing wireless communications towers in residential related districts on property not used exclusively for residential purposes.
(c) Attached antennas on nonresidential buildings and structures in nonresidential related districts.
(d) New support structures at remote, low visual impact locations in resource and industrial districts.
(e) Attached antennas on nonresidential buildings and structures in residential related zones on property not used exclusively for residential purposes.
(f) New support structures at low visual impact locations in commercial districts.
(g) Locations other than those listed above.
Notice, using residential land should be considered only after exhausting the first four options for siting communication towers.

The FCC Commission regulations are designed to encourage transmitter sites to be located in rural areas, away from concentrated population areas – our Canadian neighbors to the north have a major urban area just 1,000 feet away.  There are hundreds of homes in the area around the proposed antennas.

The FCC’s obligations do not require federal agencies to consider socio-economic factors, such as diminished property values, in cases where there is no requirement for environmental impact analysis (as the current Adapt Engineering July 2010 study has determined).

These radio towers will be the most prominent feature you see as you wait in line at the border to enter Point Roberts - completely out of character for our return-to-nature refuge from the city.  I do not wish to have my community's resort image debased and devalued due to a project being allowed that does not service ANY community needs.

Onsite backup generators create noise and would most likely violate the 45dB limit and are not compatible with residential zoning.

Antenna-support structures are inherently a attractive nuisance that is dangerous and attracts children to climb it.  Anti-climbing attempts such as large fencing and razor wire do not fit into the rural character of Point Roberts.

Typical zoning requirements for radio towers require at least 3 TIMES the height of the tower distance away from single-family or residential units as well as vacant residentially zoned platted land – the proposed layout fails to address these typical requirements. 

It is believed that the antenna transmitter would cause exposure of the general public to levels of radio frequency (RF) radiation in excess of set guidelines and requires an Environmental Assessment.

Exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation and Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) is very dependent on the distance from the source (radio tower) represented in the inverse-square distance law (by which the
electromagnetic field of the transmitted signal decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance).

RF causes interference to radio and non-radio devices, slows down cable modems and DSL systems by adding noise to the signals, induces feedback in computer speakers, interferes with cable television, satellite systems, cordless phones, cell phones and just about any other wireless device.

The location of the proposed antennas is adjacent to the power lines feeding Point Roberts and the elevated magnetic fields could result in elevated powerline harmonics that would cause interference in all homes.

Whatcom county cannot even debate interference based arguments due to a controlling and preemptive federal statute (47 USC § 302a(f)(2) that states that municipalities have no authority to act with respect to interference from radio towers:

Southwestern Bell Wireless, Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners , 199 F. 3d 1185
(10th Cir. 1999); cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1204 (2000)

The court found that there was complete federal preemption of the field. Allowing local zoning authorities to condition construction and use permits on any requirement to eliminate or remedy interference “ stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. . . .

In Broyde v. Gotham Tower , 13 F. 3d 994 (6th Cir. 1994),
The neighbors of a commercial radio tower sued the operator and the station tenants, claiming common-law nuisance by interference with all manner of radio, TV, telephone, garage-door opener, and other home electronic devices.  The case was dismissed as the complaint had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.

THESE INABILITIES TO COMPLAIN MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT STOP THE PROBLEMS ONCE THEY ARE HERE IN POINT ROBERTS.

The towers could negatively impact aircraft radio or navigation equipment operations or aircraft instrument guidance systems.

The proposed towers are higher than 20 feet above the surrounding trees and are closer than 20k feet (3.8 miles) to the Point Roberts airport.  They will need to be lit according to FAA policy.  How could this application overlook this fact?

Illuminated towers do not fit into the character of the Point Roberts Special District and significantly increase the chance of bird strikes which would necessitate an environmental assessment study be performed.

It’s doubtful that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were consulted in the planning of these towers which are located in a major migratory bird pathway and most likely do not comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

A Biological Assessment was done in June 2010 and found no endangered species or critical habitat.  In the past few years I have regularly seen bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus - Endangered), as well as frogs and salamanders (Rhyacotriton – Threatened) near my property adjacent to the proposed site.

A cell phone tower’s power output varies with low power ones, typically used on top of buildings, at around 100mW. Higher power ones may be as much as 10W to 80W in some rural areas.  There have been documented observable biological effects at these radiation levels – all FAR BELOW the planned 50,000 watts of these radio towers.

The Federal Telecommunications Act exempts radiation exposure for personal wireless (cell) communication from being a permitting consideration (BUT NOT radio towers!!!  This is a valid argument!!!)



Current FCC emission limits (Specific Absorption Rate/SAR) for radiation is 0.08W/kg.  These limits would most likely be exceeded for more community members than the number of local listeners to the radio station.  Recent studies show radiation levels of 0.001 W/kg allows toxins to cross the blood-brain barrier (increasing brain cancer risk), levels of 0.04 W/kg reduce sperm count, levels of 0.09 W/kg damages DNA and DNA repair ability.  Children and pregnant women are even more vulnerable.  http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

Being a property owner within a thousand feet of the proposed towers, this issue affects me deeply.  I urge the decision to outright deny conditional use permitting due to all of the issues mentioned above.  A public utility exemption that doesn’t service the local community simply should not be allowed under any circumstance.  This extremely flawed proposal, at the very minimum, requires an environmental assessment to expose the numerous errors and misjudgments made in consideration of the 50,000 watt AM radio towers being built upon this particular piece of property.  

No comments:

Post a Comment