Resolution 3650 - Laserfiche WebLink

A. ISSUE - LACK OF MATERIAL DISCLOSURE BY APPLICANT Findings: The City reviewed information contained in the environmental checklist, geotechnical report, a brochure prepared by US West, various articles prepared on EMF and potential related health risks, and a field investigation of the site. The Appellant contends: a) that the proposed tower would result in significant amounts of EMF, and b) there are potentially harmful health effects that may result from exposure to EMF. The Appellant provided information in the letter of appeal that addresses the potential health risks associated with EMF. The appeal references a number of scientific studies and articles on this subject matter. The Appellant states that these studies constitute significant new information. City staff also has provided selected studies and standards related to potential health effects from exposure to EMF. This information is included in Exhibit #8 of the staff report to Council . The proposed communications tower is located approximately 650 feet from the nearest residence, 1, 350 feet from the Lowell Neighborhood boundary, and 1,400 feet from the nearest residence located within the Lowell Neighborhood. There are, at present, no federal, state, or local regulations which set standards limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields in Everett. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted a threshold which is used to determine whether an environmental review must be conducted prior to licensing of cellular antennas. This threshold is established in the guidelines developed by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) . The applicable 1992 ANSI exposure limit is 500 to 593 microwatts per square centimeter for fields in the cellular spectrum. As measured at the base of a cellular tower, the exposure would be less than one percent of this guideline (refer to Exhibit #7 of the staff report to Council) . Seattle and King County are the only local jurisdiction that have adopted regulations related to EMF. The adopted standards are identical to the 1992 ANSI guidelines. John Hunt, in his testimony on behalf of the Applicant, indicated that exposure levels in the Lowell community would be even less than at the base of the tower. This is due to the fact that the transmission signal is less concentrated at ground level compared to at the same level as the antenna. 3