Telecommunications law makes it hard to beat these Cell phone installations, at least on health or safety grounds, but we at Green Legal Solutions have delayed them for thorough environmental review under CEQA (aesthetics and similar issues are grounds for appeal).
In Lake County, we stopped a ridgeline Cell phone tower at the Supervisors level, because a full review of a planned series of repeater stations was needed. Verizon has big bucks for lawyers, but people power and public interest law can go a long way. And AT&T is coming soon to a tree near you.
Here's the article from this morning's Marin IJ for all interested in the process:
County commission OKs Fairfax cell tower plan despite neighborhood protests
Posted:
09/10/2012 03:46:59 PM PDT
A
hotly-contested plan by a telecommunications giant to erect a 50-foot
cellphone tower disguised as a tree on a ridge near Boy Scout Camp
Tamarancho above Fairfax was approved Monday by a county commission as
neighbors vowed to bring their fight to the Board of Supervisors.
The
county Planning Commission, saying Verizon Wireless made a compelling
case for the tower in light of a coverage gap along Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard, unanimously approved the proposal despite protests from
neighbors who live almost a half-mile away.Mark Fiore of Bothin Road in Fairfax, a Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist, said neighbors will chip in the $770 needed to appeal the decision to county supervisors.
Commissioners agreed that after a five-year planning effort, Verizon had come up with an acceptable, largely unobtrusive plan that would improve cellphone coverage, speed emergency response time and boost public safety. Two commissioners relayed stories of
experiences with medical emergencies in which cellphone coverage was not readily available.
In any event, commissioners agreed with a Verizon lawyer who cautioned that federal
law limits the ability of local agencies to restrict such facilities.
"This cell tower is situated in such a way that will have virtually no impact," said Commissioner Katherine Crecilius.
"Generally I'm against putting structures on ridgelines, (but) this just becomes another odd tree," added
Commissioner Randy Greenberg, saying the project "in no way is a precedent for or enables other ridgeline applications.""In general, I think this is an appropriate location," said Commissioner Don Dickenson. "Our hands are tied" by federal regulations, noted Commissioner Wade Holland, adding Verizon "has jumped through the hoops" with a diligent planning effort.
Several speakers indicated support for the plan, including former Sausalito fire chief Steve Bogel, who lives on Manor Road in Fairfax. "I hope this system will improve our service for our convenience and for public safety," he said.
But a dozen area residents rose to oppose the tower, calling it a blight on the ridgeline, a radio wave health hazard, a "lightning rod" for fire danger in a "tinderbox" area buffeted by wind, and argued that alternative sites were not adequately reviewed.
Nancy Morita of Iron Springs Road called the tower plan an "oversized industrial pollutant" that would spew hazards around the clock to satiate the "greed of an outside corporation." Neighbor Rebekah Collins called the tower an "enormous liability" that would attract lightning strikes and trigger wildfires that would sweep down the canyon. "Why is it that we have to sacrifice our peace of mind and our quality of life for this project?" she asked.
Others asserted Verizon had not studied other sites in enough detail — or even shown that enough of a "coverage gap" existed to merit the tower.
The commission disagreed with just about every neighborhood argument, noting that the plan called for a tower 70 feet below a site turned down by a county zoning official last year, and said the latest plan was far superior.
After years of effort in which Verizon said it reviewed 24 alternative sites, including three at Tamarancho, lawyers for Verizon called the new plan "the least intrusive means of addressing this significant coverage gap." Boy Scouts officials agreed.
The latest plan moves the "stealth" tree tower site at 1000 Iron Springs Road nearer a cluster of trees, and "will have little if any visual impact," according to Verizon attorney Paul B. Albritton. "This vital infrastructure fully complies with the Marin County Development Code, the Marin County Telecommunications Plan, the Marin Countywide Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act, and the denial of the application would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996," Albritton advised.
The 50-foot-tall "monopine" tree would have 12 panels of antennae disguised as branches. A 1,216-square-foot area would be enclosed by a 6-foot-tall chain-link fence and include a 184-square-foot equipment shelter, a standby generator and a 210-gallon fuel tank.
Officials noted that AT&T is interested in using the tree antenna, a move that would require a design review permit application.
4 comments:
As a Glen Drive resident, I welcome the presence of this tower. Honestly, cell phone usage is common all over the world, and there is NO study that shows a correlation between cell tower radiation and cancer or any other health hazard. It is an incredible inconvenience for everyone in the area that cell coverage is so poor, and a huge risk during any kind of emergency. Many emergencies all over the world over the last ten years have been mitigated by cell phone coverage and people with phones.
The lightening strike argument is laughable. As someone who studied atmospheric physics and lightening, I can assure you that it tends to hit the highest object in the area, whether it's tree or a power pole or an upraised golf club. The conductivity of a metal tower is trivial compared to the thousands of feet of air gap that lightening reaches across. One could easily argue that a well-grounded tower with lightening protection would reduce the risk of a fire!
As a Glen Drive resident, I welcome the presence of this tower. Honestly, cell phone usage is common all over the world, and there is NO study that shows a correlation between cell tower radiation and cancer or any other health hazard. It is an incredible inconvenience for everyone in the area that cell coverage is so poor, and a huge risk during any kind of emergency. Many emergencies all over the world over the last ten years have been mitigated by cell phone coverage and people with phones.
The lightening strike argument is laughable. As someone who studied atmospheric physics and lightening, I can assure you that it tends to hit the highest object in the area, whether it's tree or a power pole or an upraised golf club. The conductivity of a metal tower is trivial compared to the thousands of feet of air gap that lightening reaches across. One could easily argue that a well-grounded tower with lightening protection would reduce the risk of a fire!
Thanks for commenting Tom. As you know, you cannot challenge cell phone towers on health issues. And the jury is out on what effect they may have on health of surrounding people. But neighbors have the right to challenge on the grounds they have. We'll see how it goes at the supe level and then, what's next.
Follow up article is in Sunday;s IJ: http://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_21654167/neighbors-appeal-countys-fairfax-cell-tower-decision
I cant believe in this age of mass information someone can say "there is NO study that shows a correlation between cell tower radiation and cancer or any other health hazard" unless they are in bed with the telecommunications co.
Our cells communicate using electro magnetic frequencies. Our brain emits a constant stream of frequencies and our DNA delivers instructions, using frequency waves to replicate.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT BEING BOMBARDED WITH RF WAVES HAS NO EFFECT ON THIS DELICATE SYSTEM!!!!
Here is your "study" that you say does not exist!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vb9R0x_0NQ&feature=youtu.be
Post a Comment