1. 1 Canyon Area Residents for the Environment Deb Carney Attorney for C.A.R.E. 21789 Cabrini Blvd July 1, 2003

2. 2 CANYON AREA RESIDENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Umbrella group for Jeffco HOAs in Jeffco Central Mountains 9,000 people 25 HOA speaker authorizations –Each signed by 2 Board members of HOAs for CARE speakers

3. 3 3,300 Signatures on Petition “We oppose the rezoning application for a broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain filed by Lake Cedar Group Corporation and petition Jefferson County to deny the proposal.” Over 3,300 Signatures to Date 2002-2003 Petition

4. 4 CARE Facts vs LCG Illusions Massive Proposal Visual Improvement Nonconforming must be eliminated Can use towers for digital Incompatible Compatible Widespread radiation increased Overall radiation reduced Health Risk No Health Risk Alternative Sites WorkNo Alternative Sites

5. 5 VISUAL REALITY Much Different than LCG simulation

6. 6 Current Channel 4 Tower 5 ft Wide

7. 7 10 ft Wide New Proposed SUPER Tower 5 ft Wide Heavier Guy Wires 3 to 4.5” Thick

8. 8 New SUPER Tower at Full Limits Total width can be ~27.3 feet,. 27ft 10ft 5ft 13 ft

9. 9 LCG Must Carry Burden of Proof 100% Burden of Proof on Lake Cedar Group Changed circumstances since original zoning must show proposal in best interest of Health, Safety and Welfare Compliance with zoning resolution

10. 10 LCG CAN’T PROVE CIRCUMSTANCES NOW WARRANT CHANGE FROM PRESENT ZONING 50 YEAR HISTORY residential and agricultural zoning

11. 11 INCOMPATIBLITY Zoning Resolution Requires Compatiblity 17.C.3.c. 17 F.2.a (1) with existing and allowable land uses in the surrounding area

12. 12 LOOKOUT TOWERS INCOMPATIBLE IN 4 BCC ZONING DENIALS 1983 “not compatible with allowable or existing land uses.” Ex. 56 1985 “not compatible with allowable and existing land uses in the surrounding area.” Ex. 57 1990 “not compatible with allowable land uses in the surrounding area in all directions” Ex. 59 1999 “incompatible with residential uses in the surrounding area.” LCG rezoning denial Ex. 63

13. 13 FOUR PREVIOUS DENIALS For Tower at this site! 1. Mountain Contours KTVJ 1983 Proposed tower denied Exhibit 56 2. Mountain Contours KTVJ 1985 Proposed tower deniedExhibit 57 3. Mountain Contours KTVJ 1990 Proposed tower denied Exhibit 58 4. Lake Cedar Group 1999 Proposed tower denied Exhibit 63

14. 14 6 th Attempt by Mountain Contours/Ch. 20 Owner

15. 15 MORE INCOMPATIBLE THAN EVER BEFORE More Residents/Businesses Now Ex. 24 & Jeffco Assessor Data Greater adverse effects (interference/health) Ex. 7-11, 25-47, 53,70-79, 87-89,90,92,107-126 Zoned Residential/Agricultural for 5 decades 20 Year History of Tower Denials on Lookout

16. 16 1999 Denial of LCG-Still Valid Incompatible with residential uses Central Mountains Community Plan (CMCP) - Violates visual resources, public services and mountain site design criteria (aesthetics) Does not contain sufficient set backs (tower fall issue) Violates Telecommunications Land Use Plan (TLUP) policies on tower siting No showing that an alternative site is unavailable Not in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare Exhibit 63

17. 17 LCG Cannot Use Nonconforming Towers for Digital Obsolete Analog Antennas Cannot Be Replaced with Digital Antennas

18. 18 NONCONFORMING LCG Towers/Buildings in MR1 All LCG Lookout towers/buildings Channel 4-nonconforming in residential Channel 7-nonconforming in residential Channel 9-nonconforming in residential Plus illegal radar tower in residential Ex. 65 45 out of 47 Lookout towers nonconforming Ex. 54

19. 19 Nonconforming Broadcast Towers,Antennas & Facilities Jeffco Phase Out 1977-Citizens rely on Jeffco promise that these towers were temporary Ex. 52 1985-TLUP Details Burdens of Interference, Visual & Health Ex. 23 1990-Jeffco Plan -phase out all nonconforming Ex. 54 1999-LCG to FCC & Jeffco “Lookout towers being phased out” Ex. 64, 65

20. 20 LCG to Judge ‘LCG Cannot Add Digital’ " due to restrictions imposed by the County through its legal nonconforming use provisions in the Zoning Resolution, the Lake Cedar members were essentially prohibited from attempting to add an additional DTV antenna to their existing towers.” LCG v Jeffco-Dist Ct. Case No. 99CV2007 Ex. 64

21. 21 LCG to FCC ‘Zoning Prohibits Addition of Digital to Existing Towers’ “…provisions of Section 6….prohibit Broadcasters from adding a digital television antenna to their respective existing broadcast towers in the Lookout Mountain Antenna Farm….” 1999 LCG Preemption Petition to FCC Exhibit 65

22. 22 LCG lost all attempts to add digital to Lookout towers Channel 4 – January 27, 2000 application add digital antenna to nonconforming South Microwave tower Channel 9-attempt to add digital to Channel 9 radar tower Tower illegal-Channel 9 agrees to remove radar

23. 23 "the law in Colorado strongly disfavors legal nonconforming uses and encourages their elimination at the earliest possible time." Tim Cox, Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Answer Brief Oct. 2001 in Channel 4 lawsuit over denial of digital permit Group W/CBS Television Stations Partners v BOA 01-CV-0898

24. 24 Colorado Supreme Court 2001 Nonconforming uses must be brought into conformity with the underlying zoning uses as rapidly as possible. Fire House Car Wash v Board of Adjustment and City of Denver 30 P. 3d 762, 766 (2001); Hartley v. City of Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216 (Colo. 1988).

25. 25 Nonconforming uses hurt Residents: 1. Effectiveness of zoning ordinances reduced 2. Property values depressed 3. Contribute to urban blight. Fire House Car Wash v Board of Adjustment and City of Denver 30 P. 3d 762, 766 (2001); Hartley v. City of Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216 (Colo. 1988).

26. 26 Zoning Administrator “Digital TV and analog TV are not the same. Allowing a digital TV antenna to replace a nonconforming analog TV antenna would potentially extend the life of the nonconforming use in violation of criteria set forth in Section 6.” Tim Carl Testimony, June 26, 02 02-102616VC

27. 27

28. 28 LCG NONCOMPLIANCE ZONING RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS TYPEZ.R. SECTION ALTERNATIVE SITES 17 F.2.b.(1) COMPATIBILITY17 F.2.a (1) & 17 C.3.c RADIATION SAFETY 2 L. 2. a & 17 F.1.c.(4) TOWER FALL SET BACK 17 F.2.b.(2)

29. 29 Already 1 of Most Radiated Communities in U.S. 9,000 residents “behind” Towers West of Denver same altitude as high powered TV/FM and radar power beams with decades of cumulative radiation from continuous exposure

30. 30 LCG ADMITS Widespread RF Increases RF Increase Section LCG Ex. 17 CARE Ex. 80

31. 31

32. 32 Visualizing the Radiation Light Simulation of Radiation Pattern Large Map –Base Map –Jeffco County Assessor Data –TLUP Finding on Effect of Towers on Property values –Clear Overlay-LCG directional antenna pattern Can be rotated-Quite Zone Example –Radiation increase Specific examples shown with factor of increase

33. 33 ALTERNATIVE SITES EXIST

34. 34 No Rezoning if Alternative Sites Exist Minimum standard of Rezoning Resolution Section 17 2b. (1) & Tower Siting & Review Policy 1b. TLUP The applicant must show that their proposed equipment cannot be accommodated and function….on any other existing facility.

35. 35 JEFFCO RF CONSULTANT ALTERNATIVE SITES WORK Lake Cedar Group cannot meet its 100% Burden of Proving that no alternative sites exist.

36. 36 INTERFERENCE INCREASE

37. 37 ECONOMIC HARM

38. 38 TLUP FINDINGS ON PROPERTY VALUES The specific characteristics of Telecom facilities that seem to negatively impact property values are: a. Visual Impact b. Interference c. Concern over possible health effects TLUP Property Value Finding # 3 Ex. 23

39. 39 Violation of Property Rights of Thousands of Residents 10% Loss of Property Value Ex. 20-22 Mitigation Costs Ex. 53 Imposition of Nuisance –Interference, noise –Health Concerns Loss of Legal Rights of Quiet Enjoyment & Peaceable Possession-Radiation without consent

40. 40 HEALTH RISKS

41. 41 FCC & Engineers-Not qualified to practice medicine or give opinions on health effects

42. 42 FCC Radiation Limits Not Protective for Long-term Exposure Physicians, Scientists, & EPA Ex. 9, 70-79, 107,116,120,121,128,129 Dr. Hoffman -Colo. Dept of Health –FCC Limit only protects against short-term exposure –Community experiences long-term exposure recommended ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable rather than FCC standard Ex. 8,9 & 71

43. 43 University of Colorado Health Sciences Department of Radiation Oncology Public Testimony in Jefferson County Hearings “Without proper scientific data, we consider it unconscionable to expose the people of Jefferson County to these levels of radiation.” We know of no other instance where a device, chemical or drug... would be imposed on the public without proof of its safety.

44. 44 Biological Effects to Humans Near TV/FM Towers at 5% MPE or Lower SAGE REPORT- Broadcast RF Studies Reporting Biological Effects & Adverse Health Effects at levels below FCC Standards Ex. 107 Changes in Immune Function Infertility in men Inability to reproduce-mice

45. 45 Study on Effect of Broadcast Radiation on Lookout Mountain Residents $700,000 National Institute of Health Study June 03 Letter from Dr. Reif Ex.90 1999-LCG opposed Rep. Witwer 99 Research Bill

46. 46 Health Threats Physicians & Scientists Video Dr. Ross Wilkins, M.D. –Orthopeadic Oncologist Dr. Goldsmith, M.D. –Epidemiologist Dr. Litovitz –Physicist –Bioelectromagnetics

47. 47 Dr. Ross Wilkins-Orthopaedic Oncologist –President of Musculoskeletal Tumor Society –Medical Director Donor Alliance Institute for Limb Preservation –Published papers molecular/cellular/developmental biology –Book chapters re: cancer diagnosis/ treatment Ex. 105

48. 48 Dr. Goldsmith, M.D. M.P.H. Epidemiologist TV Broadcast Towers and Cancer: The End of Innocence for Radiofrequency Exposures –American Journal of Industrial MedicineEx. 112 Epidemiological Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation (Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting, and Occupational Studies – International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Health Ex. 111

49. 49 Dr. Litovitz-Physicist Director of BioElectromagnetics Laboratory –Catholic University of America Chronic Electromagnetic Field Exposure Decreases HSP70 Levels and Lowers Cytoprotection-Ex. 118 –Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 84:447-454 (2002) Presentation at Congressional Staff Briefing Ex. 117

50. 50

51. 51 PREEMPTION THREAT Tremendous support for Jeffco last time Legislation forbidding preemption sponsored by Rep. Tancredo & Vermont –July 01 Congressional Staff Briefing-Dr. Litovitz & Deb Carney –9/11 Interrupted –Reintroduction planned Support by National League of Cities-Ex.91