Fact Sheet submitted to city planning commision June 1st

This document and two ea. Book Cell Towers and 2ea. Books Cell Phone was given to Tina Hadley Asst. Planner and Joan Ryan, AICP senior planner on June 1 2007
El Monte Neighborhood Association 6/1/07
http://elmontecelltowerappeal.blogspot.com/
CELL TOWER APPEAL fact sheet

Over 250 neighbors appealed to the City Planning Commission to cancel the base station approval at 3517 Clayton Rd. rd and practice PRUDENT AVOIDANCE.

The following is just some of the reasons: Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Microwave Radio Frequency Radiation. Even low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2 range, at levels hundreds and thousands of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location causing cell damage. Children are more susceptible to EMF’s due to smaller body size, thinner skulls and more rapidly dividing cells. The tower if built would present a hazard to the El Monte Grade School.

We ask the City to practice prudent avoidance with the citing of towers. The Precautionary Principle holds that when questions of safety are concerned, precautions should be taken to protect the public health. It is the only approach that makes sense, due to what we already know about health issues and what has and will be provide to the City of Concord.


1. Liability assumed by The City of Concord. The reason health issues should be a concern is that The City of Concord will be in real danger of being sued, as there are personal injury and class action litigation all across this country. Ref. Cell Towers “Everyone with a stake in siting decisions near populated areas are lawsuits-waiting-to-happen. There is no statute of limitation on health effects claims for EMF damage.” Horizon Tower LLC, DW Horizon LLC, DW Horizons all different names used on their letterhead and correspondence have no visible assets. They are a limited liability company and when the suits start flying as a result of radiation damage to the neighbors, the city of Concord and the property owners will stand-alone. Ref. Cell Towers “with a LLC most of the finical assets are in other holding companies and are there for out of reach. Many service providers are selling their own towers to LLC” to limit their liability. The city does not know nor can they find out, who the owners or limited partners are, in Delaware owners can change and stock traded with no public record. No where in communications that we have available to us does T-Mobil or Horizon Tower, DW Horizon LLC, DW Horizons correspondence say that this exposure is safe, they say only that the tower, “will comply with the prevailing standards of limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment.” Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not “the environment” but humans, depending on DNA cell reproduction. The operation of cells and thinking, muscle function has an electronic component. Dr. Robert Becker author of Body Electric, and Cross Currents writes: “We depend on tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes. Radiation once considered safe is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, learning disabilities Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer” See 4a there is a huge body of evidence to support this claim. The tower presents a constant persistent hazard to the neighbors, students, business, churches and especially to the El Monte School. Children are most susceptible to radiation damage due to the thinness of their skull and rapid developing DNA.

2. The City of Concord has declared in its approval “the tower is not detrimental to the public health, safety and aesthetics of the surrounding area.” There is a body of evidence provided to the City Of Concord by the El Monte Neighborhood Association, including books and research papers and testimony that will refute the city’s statement of safety. The tower is not needed as evidenced by T-Mobil’s “Personal Coverage Check” provided and our additional research. Other options exist and should be considered such as piggybacking in safe locations and repeaters. See 2a

3. The towers design is intended for additional cellular corporations to share. This tower then will increase the damage to its neighbors health. T-Mobil declares “The maximum effective radiated power will be 3,000 watts in any one direction.” Horizon Tower Advises (Susan Densmore sp?) that a total of four cell companies could use this tower. Thus the neighbors could be exposed to 12,000 watts in any direction. Research has shown that microwave-modulated-radiation, even at a fraction of the allowable limit, disrupts the body DNA. The other cellular corporations can be added with out the city determining a need or increased exposure. The city of Concord is giving three additional cellular corporations a location with out an approval process in place and without determining a need and additionally without considering the health hazards of the neighbors.
4. Federal appeals courts, including California’s Own Ninth Court of Appeals in the case of MetroPCS v City and County of San Francisco (MetroPCS v City and County of San Francisco, 400f .3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) ), have ruled that local governments have the authority to deny applications to build cellular towers unless the applicant proves (1) that a ‘significant gap’ in a particular wireless carrier’s service exists in that area in other words ‘gaps’ in service are permissible; they must be ‘significant’); and (2) if a significant gap does in fact exist, that the proposed site is the ‘least intrusive, alternative’ for filling that significant gap. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that other, less intrusive alternatives, do not exist. The Ninth Circuit has yet to define precisely what constitutes a ‘significant gap,’ that means that a local government like Concord has latitude in considering, what it understands the term to mean. We call on the City to demand proof that a significant gap in coverage exists. And if so that the site be considered by the City Council to be the least intrusive, using community input.
5. The city of Concord has given by default authority, to add three additional Cellular Corporations, (the right without proving need to the City) to bombard the neighborhood with a total of 12,000 watts of deadly microwave radiation. The city has abdicated it responsibility to protect its citizenry by unilaterally declaring “the tower is NOT detrimental to the public health, safety and aesthetics of the surrounding area.”

6. Property Values The fear of health affects from radiation will lower property values in the neighborhood. CA Courts of appeal have ruled that arguing the fear of a health risk has a negative impact on property values of nearby property is legally permissible even if an actual health risk is not claimed or cannot be conclusively established.
7. Noise It is anticipated that there will be a constant drone of air conditioners (60db) when the temperature exceeds 70 degrees. The approved site is within 150 feet of neighborhood property.

8. Speculation The city does not have to allow an application for a site built on speculation by a LLC corporation who is not a service provider but a builder of speculative facilities with no proven need.

9. Ref. Cell Towers “No town should allow itself to be intimidated by telecom service providers or adjunct industries like tower companies. Despite the preemptions, there is still a lot of power reserved to the municipalities, and there is volume of good case law to back up local decisions. It is not just an aesthetic issue. It is a medical one. Here are some key provisions that should be included:
Note provisions truncated
· Monitoring of RF emissions is essential. To be instituted by independent RF engineers – not industry engineers. The industries should pay for the monitoring, not the taxpayers.
· Large setbacks should be established from homes, schools hospitals or wherever people congregate – at least 1500 feet.
· Take metal objects into consideration because they cause hotspots.
· Establish by-zones where facilities can locate-but nowhere else.
· Discourage private entrepreneurs and churches from establishing sites.
· Allow signal strengths that will allow for adequate coverage and adequate capacity, not blanket coverage. The right to determine signal strength at the local level has been upheld in federal case law in U.S. Sprint v. Willoth, and by FCC. The FCC only requires 75% coverage of an area – not 100% coverage.
· Towns should require extensive engineering detail in their applications, otherwise companies do not have to prove that a facility is really needed. They may be speculating on a site without admitting it.
· Require independent engineering review of all applications and modifications to existing sites. See details chapter 12 chapter 13 Book (Cell Towers B.Blake Levitt)
· Encourage satellite-based systems
· Require the service provider (T-Mobil) the tower owner and the landowner all to be part of the application. That will discourage towers built on speculation.
· Write airtight liability protection into the regulations by all concerned, with proof of insurance annually submitted.
· Note additions recommendations in books provided to the city!



More information on health issues and case law will be provided to the City from time to time by the El Monte Neighborhood Asssociation.