Santa Cruz County hops back into cell-tower fight

Kurtis Alexander - Sentinel Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/05/2008 04:01:54 AM PST


SANTA CRUZ -- Cell phone companies will have a tougher time putting up towers in the rolling hills and residential neighborhoods of Santa Cruz County under a proposal put forth this week by county planners.
But not a tough enough time, say watchdog groups who claim the telecommunications giants are poisoning the public with their radio frequencies.
"This is a medical and environmental issue," said longtime opponent of cell towers Marilyn Garrett, who can rattle off a number of health risks, most widely contested, that may be posed by wireless facilities.
The proposed changes to the county's cell tower ordinance, which include requiring setbacks between wireless towers and schools and limiting their concentration in unincorporated areas, come in response to ongoing complaints.
Plans by the wireless companies to erect towers, like one in January that proposed concealing three antennas in a flagpole in Live Oak, have met community resistance and have brought out dozens to protest at local planning meetings, namely because of health concerns.
Federal law, however, restricts local governments from making decisions about cell towers on the basis of health risks, as there is no scientific consensus whether radio frequency emissions are a real threat.
That's left the county Planning Department, at the prodding of the county Board of Supervisors, to work on tightening the rules on other grounds. The official line for the county's decision-making is minimizing "visual impact," though some elected leaders acknowledge health concerns are the driving force.
"It's the elephant in the room," said Supervisor Jan Beautz, who represents Live Oak and agreed with the Planning Commission's decision earlier this year to dump the flag-pole plan on 17th Avenue near the intersection with Brommer Street.
"I won't pretend we can stop people from using cell phones, but we can't help but consider health issues," she said. "A lot of things that people thought were safe in the past weren't."
Beautz and the other four supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to send the tighter regulations to the Planning Commission, where a final decision will be made.
The amendments, if approved, would require a 300-foot buffer between wireless towers and schools, limit three towers to any given site and allow rooftop antennas to be subject to aesthetic concerns.
Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Heidi Flato said her company welcomes recommendations from county planners on where to put their towers but at the same time Verizon must honor its commitment to customers to ensure reliable service.
"We want to be a good neighbor," she said. "If there's a visual impact, we take that into consideration."
For opponents of cell towers, however, decisions and policy-making based on "visual impact" miss the point.
"It's like discussing how elegant cigarettes look," Garrett said.
Federal Communications Commission officials have long insisted that the radio signals emitted by the towers do not come into contact with people at unsafe levels.
County planner Frank Barron said wireless providers are required to monitor their facilities' emissions regularly to make sure they meet FCC standards.
A recent inventory of wireless facilities puts the number of cell towers in the county at 172, and growing.
Nationwide, there are about 210,000, according to industry group International Association for Wireless Telecommunications Industry.
Contact Kurtis Alexander at 706-3267 [email protected]