NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGIES & ACTIONS TO OPPOSE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT ST. LUKE’S CHURCH

San Miguel – Rudgear Neighborhood Coalition

March 21, 2013

Contents

• Background

• Project Description

• Detrimental Impacts

• Contra Costa County Agency Involvement

• Project Proponents & Motivations

• Actions Completed/In-Progress

• Organization & Action Plan

Background

• 70’ telecommunications tower at St. Luke’s church

• St. Luke’s and Verizon began discussions 2+ years ago – no notice provided or input solicited from community

• Verizon submitted land use permit application Feb. 2012 to Contra Costa County

• On March 4 CCC issued a notice to just 22 parcel owners whose properties are adjacent to the church project

• Permit approval if the applicant conforms to the required mitigations contained in the Initial Study.

• Deadline for public comment is Friday, April 5

• Public Hearing Monday, April 15 on permit application

Time is limited to influence the outcome of the permit approval process; a cohesive opposition strategy and tactical plan is essential!

Project Description

• 69.5’ tall telecommunications tower at the Northwest corner of the church property

• Tower height above sea level will be about 340 feet

• Nine 6-foot tall antenna panels (broadcasting 360 degrees) positioned on tower

• Equipment shelter at the base for electrical equipment and a diesel generator

• Electrical power and telecommunications connections to the tower will be supplied by 630’ underground cable

• A fence will surround the equipment shelter which will be in view above the height of the fence. Not sure about barbed or razor wire on the top of the fence

• Lighting - shaded to cast downward and used during maintenance activities on tower facilities

• Attempt to disguise as a fake tree (camouflage trees not on church property!)

Detrimental Impacts

Facilities like this are appropriate for industrial parks, freeway right-of-ways, or remote open space areas. Inappropriate for a residential neighborhood comprised of low-density single family homes.

There are three detrimental major impacts that will negatively affect our neighborhood:

1. Aesthetic degradation (visual blight)

2. Potential health hazards from high power radio frequency transmissions

3. Devaluation of property values

Stone Valley Rd (South 680 On-Ramp)

Shell Ridge Open Space

Aesthetic Degradation

• A tower of this height and equipment density will be conspicuous to all line-of-sight property owners despite mitigation efforts to camouflage its presence.

The fake tree disguise will be noticeable – especially as artificial components weather and fade over time

If non-church owned “camouflage” trees are removed; fake tree will stand out

The nine 6’ tall antennas and base facilities will be impossible to disguise and will be a permanent eyesore

There will be noise and air pollution from diesel operation during power outages and during mandatory monthly equipment testing

There will be disruption to wildlife activity

Potential health hazards from high power radio frequency (RF) transmissions

RF emissions safety is complex and controversial. But our families (especially our kids) would be better off without exposure to the high powered RF emissions.

No description of the intensity of the RF output is in the Initial Study documents; we don’t know how close this tower’s emissions will be to the legal maximum. Bigger size & closer = stronger RF emissions

Health risk is an “off-the-table” issue for the permit approval process - yet other proposed tower installations near schools have been stopped due to child safety concerns

Answer this question: Given a choice, would you want your family in a home near a massive telecommunications tower?

Potential Devaluation of Property Values

Negative aesthetics and uncertain health risks will result in a negative impact on neighborhood property values.

The potential financial devaluation needs to be evaluated but an amount per property in the 10s of thousands of dollars is probably realistic

Proximity and severity/clarity of line of sight to the tower will be the biggest factors for any particular property

But surrounding homes will also be impacted due to lower “comps” through home sales activity

CCC Agency Involvement

Department of Conservation and Development – Community Development Division

Completion of the CEQA mandated project checklist and recommendation; identification of required mitigations to potential project impacts; solicit public input, conduct public hearing; act on the permit application

Possible avenues of influence:

Community opposition (individually & collectively)

Challenge findings in CEQA project study

Identify non-conformance with CCC 1998 Telecommunications Policy

Compare project application with others that were similar and subsequently denied

Intervention from District IV Supervisor on our behalf

Identify alternate site locations with less negative impact

Appeal to CCC Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors

Cell site alternatives (size, co-location)

Others?

Verizon Wireless (Permit Applicant)

Verizon’s motivation: better signal penetration = more customers, higher revenue and higher profits.

Significant resources and resolve to gain permit approval

Dispassionate about local impact and community concerns

Possible Vulnerabilities:

No compelling case for increased wireless signal capacity in the area (area adequately served by competing carriers) - TBD

Valid deficiencies in the project plan that are not specifically covered by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact on Corporate image from community outrage and opposition to the project

Willingness to compromise to achieve objective (increased signal capacity)

Others?

St. Luke’s Church

St. Luke’s motivation is purely financial – the church will receive annual revenue from the site location lease to Verizon

The church is struggling financially

Has already leased steeple space to T-Mobile for antenna installation

Possible Approaches: Community pressure – on leadership and members

Educating church officials on the potential negative impact on the church’s property value – impacting future sale and development

Appeal to the central Lutheran Church authority

Legal action against the church for the financial harm to neighboring properties

Assisting the church financially

Others?

Actions Completed/In-Progress

Action Description Complete By

1 Canvass neighborhood property owners (door-to-door) visits. Sign petitions, assess involvement interest, community meeting participation

March 21

2 Engage CCC Planner, Richard Norris, for clarification on the permit approval process and Project Study content/findings. Review plan revisions submitted by the applicant. Identify potential areas of opposition points (still working)

March 12

3 Engage St. Luke’s Church (Pastor and Council). Inform them of neighborhood opposition, explore willingness to stop the project, explore alternatives and points of compromise

March 13

4 Conduct face-to-face meetings with CCC officials (e.g. Supervisor Mitchoff) March 25

5 Conduct meeting with neighborhood property owners to gain alignment on opposition support, strategies and tactics

March 21

6 Conduct special studies with subject matter expert support as necessary (examples: property value impact analysis, wildlife analysis, fire risk & prevention, site security)

April 1

7 Submit written comments and supporting documentation to County on the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND

April 5

8 Send letters of opposition and collected petitions to all relevant parties April 5

9 Prepare for April 15 public hearing – ID speakers, content, supporting documentation

April 14

10 MASS ATTENDANCE & MANY SPEAKERS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING!!!! April 15

Complete

Action Plan/Organization

Focus Areas Key Activities

CCC Permit Process • Challenges to MND• Identify conflicts with CCC code and policies• Letters of opposition• Public hearing attendance

Pressure on Church • Official letter requesting termination of project• Signage• On-site protest (Easter?)• Letter/Email campaign

Community Involvement • Social networking• Contact public officials• Media involvement

Legal • Determination of need & scope• Financial requirements• Identify potential resources

Contact:Bill Messana, CPAWalnut Creek, CA(925)788-3356bill@messanacfo.com

Key St. Luke’s Decision Maker – Bill Messana

Church Council President

CFO Consultant, Walnut Creek, CA                                                                                       CFO consulting and advisory services to early stage and emerging growth companies