Suggested Talking Points for Dec. 19, 2017 City Council Hearing on Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF)

The one thing that most of us agree on in this room tonight is that there is a need for better cell coverage in northeast Fort Collins. In fact, the only argument in favor of this cell tower is that it may provide better cell coverage, but there is no guarantee of that depending on where you live. Therefore, we are asking City Council to deny this APU for the following reasons:

  1. Zoning
  • WTF's not allowed in residential zones.
  • Many people don't want to live next to a cell tower.
  • People don't expect to see a cell tower, no matter how well disguised, go up in a residential zone.
  • We have a right to know what to expect in our neighborhoods.
  • Would you want to see a cell tower go up across the street from your home?
  • What is zoning for if it can be easily waived?
  1. Sets a Precedent
  • If approved, this will be the first time that a cell tower would be allowed in a residential zone in Fort Collins. This could set a precedent for future projects.
  • If approved, although still subject to the APU process, this project will make it easier for towers to go up in other residential zones.
  • Judging by the heavy-handed tactics Verizon has used on this project, what is to prevent them from doing the same with a similar project in the future?
  • What's to stop carriers and tower companies from targeting residential zones for new towers if they have success with this project?
  • Does the city really want to communicate to the telecom industry that our zoning regulations are just a suggestion?
  1. P& Z Board and CMS oppose this project
  • We are not alone in opposing this tower.
  • The P& Z Board voted 4-1 against this tower because it is too tall and out of character with the site.
  • CMS notes that Verizon is not a co-applicant on the project so the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not apply – does the City Attorney agree with the interpretation of Verizon's lawyers? What is the city's response to the Oct. 16, 2017 letter from Verizon's lawyers?
  • Verizon's decision to time the delivery of the Oct. 16 letter from their lawyers until the actual day of the first scheduled City Council hearing on Oct. 17, 2017 smacks of intimidation. They put our City Council into the awkward position of having to send all of us home, leading to more delays that ended with the hearing being scheduled for the week before Christmas.
  • I think most of us here tonight, whatever our position on this project, can agree that we don't appreciate these kinds of intimidating actions on the part of Verizon.
  • Although our city is limited by federal law in how to respond to proposed cell towers, we do not believe that the city should feel forced to waive its zoning regulations because a large multinational corporation is shoving its weight around.
  1. Visual Impact
  • 60' is too tall, way out of proportion with our neighborhood – see our slides.
  • 45' only allows for one, at best two carriers, and less coverage, so not a good answer either.
  • At 16' in diameter, this 60' tower will appear massive versus the visual effect of a single pole or lattice style tower. We understand that the city requires stealth designs, but the height and bulk of this tower will cause it to loom over our neighborhoods. It will look more like a grain elevator than a silo appropriate to a small farm.
  1. Alternate Sites
  • The city is not the only option since there is lots of county land out here.
  • What about co-location on the tall power poles to the east and the south?
  • The Colorado Land Board has an individual whose job it is to secure cell tower leases on their land like the turf farm in the search ring. We were easily able to reach the CLB whereas Atlas Tower claimed they were unable to get hold of them.
  • Fort Collins Country Club was an option two years ago until this less expensive site was found on Turnberry Road.
  • Why did the negotiations fail with the Country Club in the fall of 2015?
  • Once Atlas found a willing landowner at a low price, we don't believe they made good faith offers or efforts to other potential landowners in the area. Can't blame them for that, but the city is not obligated to accommodate the cheapest solution when it goes against zoning.
  1. City Land Administrative Policy
  • The City of Fort Collins has an administrative policy that does not allow cell towers to be built on city land.
  • This is due to the controversy that accompanied past project proposals like the proposed Southridge Golf Course cell tower.
  • Note, however, that the city has allowed cell towers on city land such as in City Park in the past.
  • Can the city make an exception to this policy? All the city needs to do is to alter its administrative policy and the Richards Lake Park location could be considered. As CMS pointed out, that site is higher in elevation and closer to the search ring than the current site.
  • There is also city land to the east of the current site.
  • We don't appreciate that we've had to experience the neighborhood conflict that the city has so easily avoided by implementing this policy.
  • If the city approves this cell tower, it feels to us like you are telling us that although you are no longer OK with putting cell towers on city land, you are OK with allowing them in residential zones.
  1. Anheuser Busch Multiple Choice: Which of the following statements made by Verizon and/or Atlas is true?
  • a. AB said no to a cell tower.
  • b. AB never returned Atlas Tower's calls.
  • c. Atlas received an unopened letter from AB addressed to Return to Sender.
  • d. The AB site is not an appropriate site for a cell tower.
  • e. Verizon has included the brewery in a new search ring.
  • f. AB has indicated through its Montava contacts that they would be happy to talk with a service provider if it could help the community.
  • g. AB already has a Sprint antenna on its brewery.
  • h. All of the above.
  • Correct answer: h, All of the above, according to statements made at the Neighborhood Reviews and elsewhere. What are we to make of this? Given the above, I am not convinced that Atlas made a good faith effort to fully vet the AB property. As far as we know, Atlas never succeeded in talking to anyone at AB.
  • If we are right, then the city should not feel that they are forced to approve this APU. Atlas provided sparse documentation of their efforts to reach AB, even after AB indicated they were willing to talk, as communicated to the city planner in October. AB never heard from Atlas.
  1. Neighborhood Conflict
  • There has been a lot of conflict in our area of town over this project. Most of those living nearby oppose the tower, while folks to the north understandably support it because their reception is so bad.
  • Both sides of the issue have not always behaved as well as they should have, whether at the Neighborhood Reviews, in nasty emails or social media posts, or when driving by our homes, shouting, beeping, and gesturing.
  • The APU process has taken a very long time, approaching two years. This is a long time for all of us to live with the uncertainty and the conflict surrounding this project.
  • The main reason this took so long was due to the 14 months that elapsed between the first and second Neighborhood Reviews. The first meeting was in March, 2016, and the second was in May, 2017. Note that the applicant is responsible for this delay. Why did Atlas wait so long between these two Reviews?
  • We appreciate the provision of a neighborhood mediator at our second Neighborhood Review, and have found the City Planner, Clay Frickey, to be very responsive and professional in all his dealings with us. So we do not fault the city but would recommend that some kind of time limit be added to the preliminary steps of the APU process to avoid this kind of delay in future projects.
  • Allowing a cell tower to go up in this location could encourage service providers to look at sites in other residential zones. You will see similar conflict in those neighborhoods, too, and believe me, this is something to avoid.
  1. Property Values
  • Although the city cannot take into account any possible environmental or health concerns while making their decision today, please understand that some people do have concerns about health and proximity to cell towers.
  • Due to these perceived concerns, the property values of those living close to cell towers can be negatively affected.
  • The size of the pool of potential buyers can also be decreased, which also makes it more difficult to sell a property near a cell tower at market value.
  • Please see the Letter from a local realtor in this packet.
  1. Will Atlas be a good neighbor?
  • Given that we got different answers from Atlas on their interactions with landowners in the area, we are struggling with trusting that they will be good neighbors.
  • There were persistent inaccuracies in the application itself, including the location of the proposed tower on RF coverage maps and the actual height of the tower, which varied from 60' to 70' on different documents in the package.
  • As noted above, if Verizon is so eager to improve service to our area by using this tower to mount their equipment, then why did the applicant allow this project to take almost two years?
  • What caused these errors and discrepancies and delays?
  1. Radiation emissions from cell towers not monitored
  • After installation and initial testing, the FCC does not monitor the microwave emissions from towers shorter than 200', so the industry self-monitors their equipment. Seems a little self-serving to us.
  • Cell service, including the towers that hold up the antennas, is not a public utility, as most people assume. It is provided by private carriers like Verizon.
  • Thus, there is less accountability to the public than found with public utilities.
  • The city does not have RF expertise on staff and hired an outside consultant too late in the process to require technical data to justify this project. Thus, we have to take Verizon and Atlas's word for everything.
  • Most other industrialized countries set lower safety limits for RF emissions, and since we know cell tower emissions are not monitored by third parties in the U.S., I can't help feeling concerned about living and sleeping close to one.
  • If WTF's are as safe as the FCC and the telecom industry want us to believe, why did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 include Section 704, which forbids local communities from looking at environmental and health effects when considering cell tower placements?
  • Although the emissions from my phone and wifi router are similar to those coming from a cell tower, I can turn off my personal devices and manage my use of them to minimize exposure.
  • I won't be able to turn off this cell tower if it goes up. It will be radiating 24/7.
  • Thus, keeping large, stand-alone cell towers out of residential zones make sense.
  • Please deny this APU.