Stop the Tower

< back

Written testimony of Ann Hume Loikow (Cleveland Park Citizens Association) submitted to the D.C. Zoning Commission

October 17, 2002

I am Ann Hume Loikow, Second Vice President of the Cleveland Park Citizens Association (CPCA).  CPCA was founded in 1911 to represent the Cleveland Park area.  Among its purposes, as stated in its Constitution are "to foster and to advance all public interests in the District of Columbia, especially in the area delineated ..., including, but not limited to preservation, protection and enhancement of: ... environmental values; the promotion of historical preservation in the District of Columbia; ...(and) integrity of zoning regulations ...."  CPCA has long been concerned about the proliferation of antennas and antenna towers throughout the city, but most dramatically in upper northwest.  CPCA participated in the Commission’s 2001 antenna rulemaking/roundtable (Z.C. Case No. 00-29TA) and petitioned the Commission to correct the miscodification of its 1989 antenna order (Order No. 587), which the Commission did last month in Order No. 968.

Since the Commission’s roundtables in the spring of 2001, CPCA participated in the Office of Planning’s (OP) antenna task force which participated in the development and review of the proposed regulations before you today.  As you are aware, members of the task force agreed to disagree about some issues, but the process was a very useful and worthwhile experience.  OP’s staff has diligently sought to research the issues raised at the roundtable and develop workable regulations that will protect the public interest.

CPCA is generally pleased with the proposed regulations as developed by OP.  In particular, we support consolidating all the antenna regulations in one chapter (a new chapter 26). The fact that the District’s antenna regulations were scattered throughout Title 11 of DCMR is one reason the miscodification problem took so long to surface and be resolved.  We also support having separate definitions for "antenna," "antenna tower" and "monopole."  This makes it makes it much easier to which regulations apply to towers versus antennas.

CPCA strongly supports the revised regulations for new towers and monopoles.  In particular, we support limiting the matter of right siting of new towers and monopoles in industrial districts, the prohibition of new towers and monopoles in R (residential) and C-1 (neighborhood shopping) districts and allowing them only as a special exception in C-2 through C-4, SP, CR, W, and CM districts.  We also support the doubling of the required setbacks.  The new regulations require a minimum distance of from each lot line of the greater of 20 feet or one-third of the total mounted height.  Setbacks are particularly important to protect the public’s health and safety from both failing ice and debris as well as from exposure to excessive radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions since RF exposure is directly related to distance from the source (or transmitting antenna).

Other witnesses will discuss the issue of the need to protect the public from failing ice and debris and tower collapse.  [CPCA is attaching several articles on tower collapses and similar issues.] CPCA agrees that antenna tower and monopole applicants and owners should be required to include maintenance plans in their application.  Given the District’s climate, such plans should specifically indicate how they will prevent ice buildup and how they will protect the public from falling ice and debris (including bird kill).  Depending upon the size and height of the tower, the BZA should be empowered to expand the required setbacks to protect the public from such falling debris and from injury due to possible tower collapses.  Sections 2610.2 and 2611.12 should be amended to specifically allow the BZA to require larger setbacks where necessary to protect the public and adjacent and nearby property.

Because hospitals and nursing homes are 24 hour homes to their patients and residents and because children are especially susceptible to RF radiation emission exposure, CPCA recommends that the setback in § 2608.1(a) apply to schools, hospitals and nursing homes, as well as to residentially developed or zoned property.  Similarly, CPCA recommends that § 2611.11(a) be amended to require that an applicant for a new antenna tower or monopole show the location of schools, nursing homes and hospitals in the area the tower is to serve.

All applications for a building permit for a transmitting antenna (the kind that emits radiofrequency (RF) radiation, as opposed to a receiving antenna) must be accompanied by a certification from a licensed engineer that the antenna will comply with the FCC’s RF radiation guidelines and OHSA regulations and must specifically include information on the RF radiation to be generated by the antenna and the cumulative RF radiation generated by all other antennas at the proposed site and within 200 feet.  This is a very important provision, as it will allow the District to have the information needed to begin to monitor radiation levels for compliance with the FCC RF exposure guidelines.  CPCA discussed the need for this provision and its rationale in its submission at the March 5, 2001 roundtable.

CPCA would like to propose some minor changes to § 2601’s provisions regarding the certification of compliance with FCC RF radiation guidelines.  First, the accuracy of RF measurements is affected by, and may be amplified by, the topography, both of the natural and built environment and the interaction of multiple antennas in or near the site of proposed new antenna. Given the complex urban environment that the District of Columbia is, § 2601.2(c) should be amended to require that actual field measurements, rather than just computer simulations, be used to determine the maximum potential cumulative RF radiation generated by all existing antennas at the site for the proposed new antenna.

Second, in any application for a new antenna tower or monopole, whether by matter of right or special exception, the applicant should be required to provide information on the maximum capacity of the tower or monopole, including the number of each type of antenna the tower could hold and the estimated maximum RF radiation emissions from the tower when filled to capacity.  This would allow the BZA or OP/Zoning Administrator to determine if the requested size was necessary for the purpose for which it was requested and allow them to develop a cap on the total number of antenna that may be mounted on the tower, similar to the cap on the maximum number of students at a school approved as a special exception or campus plan.  Additionally, the tower owner, once it is constructed, should be required to file a periodic report, perhaps quarterly, on what antennas are on the tower and to provide, in conjunction with the antenna owners, periodic updates on the total RF radiation emission level from all antennas on the tower.

CPCA is concerned by the proposed regulations’ requiring antenna tower and monopoles to comply with the condition that they agree to design and make the tower or monopole available for co-location by other telecommunications service providers (§§ 2608.1(g) and 2611.4).  Co-location may make sense in some locations, but in others it just guarantees that a larger, more intrusive tower or monopole is constructed.  These two provisions should be deleted.

Similarly, § 2607, on antenna additions to existing antenna towers and monopoles, should be revised by adding conditions:
a. that the application must include information on maximum capacity of the tower or monopole, including the number of each type of antenna it will hold and the estimated maximum RF radiation emissions from the tower when filled to capacity;
b. that any antenna added to an existing tower must not increase the cumulative RF radiation emissions from the tower above the FCC guidelines (and CPCA would recommend with some reasonable margin of safety below the limit to allow for variations in measurement) and
c. that no new antennas should be added to existing towers in those districts where new towers would be prohibited (R and C-1 districts) or, if any are allowed, only by special exception in those districts.

Section 2610.1, antennas subject to BZA approval, should be amended to add a new subsection (i) requiring submission and certification of the information necessary to determine if the antenna would be in full compliance with OSHA regulations and the FCC’s individual and cumulative site RF emission guidelines.

Because antennas are often mounted on rooftops and may be in close proximity with rooftop recreation space, § 2604.1, antennas placed on a roof, should be amended to require the owner of an antenna that is placed on a roof that has an outdoor recreation space to conduct and submit with in 60 days of installation of the antenna the results of field monitoring of the RF radiation emissions in the outdoor recreation space.

The Oct. 3, 2002 Supplemental OP Report reinstates the prohibition against antenna towers and monopoles in the Capitol Interest District (the immediate area around the US Capitol). This prohibition was removed in the September 9 technical corrections order because it was affected by the miscodification of the 1989 antenna order.  CPCA endorses reinstating this prohibition in the Capitol Interest District.

The Oct. 3, 2002 Supplemental OP Report proposes a new § 2614 that would require that owners, at their expense, to remove any antenna, antenna tower, monopole or equipment cabinet that has not been used for one year.  This provision would help clean up the city and landscape and is one CPCA supports.

CPCA strongly opposes including the provisions in § 2606.1 (alternative) regarding stealth structures.  A stealth structure is merely a matter of right antenna, or what may effectively be an antenna tower or monopole, that is to some extent disguised, whether as a flagpole, tree, bell tower, etc.  A notable current example is the Verizon installation at the Fitzgerald Tennis Courts and the flagpole at St. John’s College High School on Military Road, NW.  As proposed, this provision would become part of the "exempted antennas" and thus not subject to any provisions except the certification of FCC compliance for transmitting antennas in §§. 2601 and sec. 2602 (no broadcast antennas in R districts as a matter of right).  Thus, there would be very few controls on these structures or the type or size of antenna put in or on them and no public notice or process.  I would recommend that this provision be deleted and the provisions of § 2603 (ground-mounted antennas), § 2604 (antennas placed on a roof), and § 2605 (building-mounted antennas) apply instead.  Any antenna installation that is not a matter of right under these three provisions would be subject to the special exception process.  As OP noted in its Oct. 3, 2002 Supplemental Report, they have already received a "real world" proposal for a second stealth flagpole at one site that could easily result in the proliferation of such structures and turn it into a tower farm.

Several issues that the proposed regulations don’t address and should are:

1. The lights chosen to meet FAA air traffic warning light requirements for tall towers.  Given the need to protect the streetscape, landscape, skyline, scenic beauty, and aesthetic interests of the District of Columbia which is the Nation’s capital, CPCA believes that the lights chosen for a particular tower should be the least visually obtrusive.  CPCA also suggests that the regulations, like the National Capital Planning Commission’s (NCPC) Guidelines and Submission Requirements for Antennas on Federal Property in the National Capital Region, amended August 2, 2001 (NCPC Guidelines):
(a) prohibit any signals, lights, or illumination of an antenna or its support structure, including and antenna tower, or monopole, unless required by the FCC or FAA or other Federal agency and
(b) prohibit any commercial advertising on an antenna or its support structure, including and antenna tower, or monopole.

2. There are no provisions addressing antenna equipment cabinets and equipment shelter that are not roof structures.  Since equipment shelters "are generally 12 feet wide and from 20 to 30 feet long and are generally under 12 feet in height" (April 10, 2001 letter from Edward L. Donohue, on behalf of AT&T Wireless), they are the size of a small house and some design and screening provisions should apply to them.

3. Section 2612, regarding non-conforming antennas should reference § 2610 (antennas subject to BZA approval) and contain criteria for the BZA to use in considering an application for a special exception to make a permanent replacement of a nonconforming antenna.

4. In the NCPC Guidelines, approval of antennas is normally limited to five years, after which time an antenna owner can apply for renewal.  The applicant must show that all the conditions of the original approval have been and continue to be satisfied, the original installation is structurally sound and technological advances or operational changes have not offered any alternative that permit the elimination of the antenna or the reduction in its size to minimize visual impacts, or reduction in RF radiation to minimize its health and safety effects.  The initial time period may be increased to 10 years if the NCPC, in its discretion, finds that the proposed antenna will not have an adverse impact on the Monumental Core and surrounding lands, designated historic buildings and districts, or nearly residential areas and is satisfied that the technology proposed is not likely to be replaced in the next ten years by new technology that could either reduce the visibility or RF radiation levels of the proposed equipment.  I would suggest that the Zoning Commission consider similarly limiting District antenna permits to a set time period (5-10 years) for the reasons described above.

5. The regulations should include a provision similar to the existing § 211.7 which recognizes that some antenna or antenna tower or monopole applications, because of where they are located, should be reviewed, prior to BZA action, by the Historic Preservation Review Board or the US Commission of Fine Arts.

6. Finally, CPCA would urge the Zoning Commission to determine whether it has authority to regulate antennas in public rights of way, particularly those that may be attached to utility poles.  These antennas, both in the visual clutter and industrial look they give the city, particularly in historic districts, and in the possible effects on public health and safety, are of a concern to citizens.  Such installations already exist in parts of the city, particularly along Foxhall Road, NW.  This may require joint action with the District Department of Transportation which regulates the use of the public rights of way and the Public Service Commission which regulates utilities.

CPCA has a few minor suggested corrections, in the nature of typos or conforming changes, which are attached.  CPCA thanks the Commission for the opportunity to present its views and participate in this rulemaking.  We would be happy to assist the Commission in any way we can.

__________________

Suggested Technical and Conforming Amendments

§ 2601.2(g) and (i):  change "principle" to "principal"

§ 2605(f): add "and minimize RF radiation emission exposure to inhabitants" after "To avoid off-site reception interference" and before ", a transmission antenna shall not be directed into any adjacent building window."

§2606.4:in the second line, change §2606.2" to §2606.3".

Note on p. 7718 regarding "Add the following new §535.12" should be "Add the following new §534.12".

§534.12: change "side yard" to "rear yard".

The new sentence to be added to all the height provisions in §§ 530.3, 630.3, 770.3, 840.2 should be the same as in § 930.3: "This section shall not be interpreted to bypass otherwise required special exception reviews or mayoral approvals."  For clarity, the Commission also may want to add to this sentence citations to the sections specifying the special exception reviews referred to and specifically cite the 1910 Height Act with reference to the mayoral approval.

Provisions deleting §§ 701.6(g) and 701.7 through 701.9 are obsolete given the Commission’s Sept. 9, 2002 Order No. 968.