Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Council is fighting antennas
By Ryan Vaillancourt
LA CRESCENTA — The Crescenta Valley Town Council voted on Thursday to send a letter to Los Angeles County planning officials opposing a proposed telecommunications facility on Foothill Boulevard, echoing concerns from residents who believe the structures already over-saturate the area.
Sprint-Nextel has applied for a conditional-use permit to erect 12 antennas and a Global Positioning System antenna behind screens atop an office building at 2540 Foothill Blvd.
The new facility, if approved, would join at least five similar ones already within a five-mile radius, Crescenta Valley Town Councilwoman Danette Erickson said.
Some residents have expressed concern that the facilities pose health risks, while others object to them on aesthetic grounds.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains that exposure to telecommunications facilities — such as antennas and cellphone towers — is well within safety margins for nearby residents, but some contend that the relevant science behind the safety of wireless communications is inconclusive.
But perhaps most frustrating to opponents of the facilities, especially cellphones towers, is local governments’ apparent helplessness to do anything about them.
The city of La Cañada Flintridge’s attempt, starting in 2001, to deny a tower on aesthetic grounds was quashed in court by a judge who ruled that the local ordinance conflicted with the California Utilities Code.
And the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local and county governments from denying cell towers for health reasons.
While the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission typically grants conditional-use permits to projects only if they do not pose adverse health risks, that caveat is trumped by the federal mandate, said Paul Novak, planning deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, whose district includes La Crescenta.
“I’m not necessarily in support of what Congress did . . . but that is the law, and it does preclude cities and counties from considering [electromagnetic field] issues,” Novak said.
“Under federal law, we’re precluded from considering those issues, so that’s created a lot of unhappiness in many communities and my guess would be probably across the country.”
The County Regional Planning Commission will consider the permit application for the proposed Sprint-Nextel facility on May 21, and the Department of Regional Planning is recommending that the project be approved, according to a county staff report.
La Crescenta resident Glenn Workman, who lives behind the building that would host the facility, is among a group of people planning to attend the meeting to oppose the project.
“Our basis for fighting this is that we have adequate coverage in the area, and we don’t need an over-saturation of cell towers or antennas,” said Workman, who also fears that living near the facility would devalue his home.
Workman said he was familiar with the federal law and legal precedent that seem to have left local governments handcuffed, but he insists the county has alternatives.
“And I want them to start exercising those alternatives, because if they don’t, this thing’s going to be out of control,” he said.
If the permit is approved, the decision could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, said Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said.
Sprint-Nextel has applied for a conditional-use permit to erect 12 antennas and a Global Positioning System antenna behind screens atop an office building at 2540 Foothill Blvd.
The new facility, if approved, would join at least five similar ones already within a five-mile radius, Crescenta Valley Town Councilwoman Danette Erickson said.
Some residents have expressed concern that the facilities pose health risks, while others object to them on aesthetic grounds.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains that exposure to telecommunications facilities — such as antennas and cellphone towers — is well within safety margins for nearby residents, but some contend that the relevant science behind the safety of wireless communications is inconclusive.
But perhaps most frustrating to opponents of the facilities, especially cellphones towers, is local governments’ apparent helplessness to do anything about them.
The city of La Cañada Flintridge’s attempt, starting in 2001, to deny a tower on aesthetic grounds was quashed in court by a judge who ruled that the local ordinance conflicted with the California Utilities Code.
And the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local and county governments from denying cell towers for health reasons.
While the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission typically grants conditional-use permits to projects only if they do not pose adverse health risks, that caveat is trumped by the federal mandate, said Paul Novak, planning deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, whose district includes La Crescenta.
“I’m not necessarily in support of what Congress did . . . but that is the law, and it does preclude cities and counties from considering [electromagnetic field] issues,” Novak said.
“Under federal law, we’re precluded from considering those issues, so that’s created a lot of unhappiness in many communities and my guess would be probably across the country.”
The County Regional Planning Commission will consider the permit application for the proposed Sprint-Nextel facility on May 21, and the Department of Regional Planning is recommending that the project be approved, according to a county staff report.
La Crescenta resident Glenn Workman, who lives behind the building that would host the facility, is among a group of people planning to attend the meeting to oppose the project.
“Our basis for fighting this is that we have adequate coverage in the area, and we don’t need an over-saturation of cell towers or antennas,” said Workman, who also fears that living near the facility would devalue his home.
Workman said he was familiar with the federal law and legal precedent that seem to have left local governments handcuffed, but he insists the county has alternatives.
“And I want them to start exercising those alternatives, because if they don’t, this thing’s going to be out of control,” he said.
If the permit is approved, the decision could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, said Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said.
Save/Share
 |
 |
|
| Politicians looking to ban herb | Retail giant on the agenda |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of glendalenewspress.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
RSS