I REPORT, YOU DECIDE.-BY BARRY LEVINSON
BARRY LEVINSON
Park and Recreation Committee met last night and voted to approve the installation of an AT&T cell tower in Richman Park, a few feet away from the St Jude Medical Clinic and adjacent to the Richman Elementary School.
The final vote was 4 for approval, 1 abstention and 1 rejection. The vote broke down as follows:
Wayne Carvalho, Vice-Chair (appointed by Greg Sebourn) Yes
Erin Haselton (appointed by Jennifer Fitzgerald) Yes
Jesus Silva (appointed by Jan Flory) Yes
Scott Stanford (appointed at-large) Yes
Karen Lang-McNabb (appointed by Doug Chaffee) Abstained
Barry Levinson, Chair (appointed by Bruce Whitaker) No
Ladies and gentleman, it was approved despite the collection of 365 neighborhood citizen signatures telling the city that it does not want the cell tower to be installed. The committee was told that this neighborhood group only learned about this cell tower a week ago and that they were still actively collecting signatures and that more would be forthcoming. All public comments from the citizens, five in all were against the construction of the cell tower. No one from the public was for the cell tower.
It was also approved despite the fact that AT&T has not provided a contract document to the city. At my urging a similar document was provided as an example. We learned that the specifics of the cell tower equipment is not included in any contractual document but handled off line by the Park and Recreation Department.
The standard language in these cell tower contracts was somewhat troubling in a few key areas. For instance, it states under the Section entitled Use, the following: ”The Premises may be used by the Lessee” (that would be cell tower provider), “for any lawful activity in connection with the provision of wireless communications services by the Lessee.” According to the engineering study conducted for AT&T, the cell tower in question is “one percent of the applicable public exposure limit”. So under this standard language contract they could presumably increase the exposure almost 100 times and still be within the “legal” FCC limits according to the study. All this can be done without every being reviewed again by the Parks and Recreation Committee or the Fullerton City Council. I noted last night that this contractual language was not acceptable to me. Apparently, it was acceptable to everyone else as I was the only no vote.
I also asked if the council would be given a copy of the AT&T contract prior to their vote to approve the cell tower. The answer was that it is not provided in their agenda package because it is a standard contract approved many years ago by a former council.
I found all of the above unacceptable as I believe we were voting on an agenda item based on only verbal assurances by AT&T and very little else.
Now ladies and gentleman, I have not even yet raised the part that is most concerning to many others and me. It is the potential health risks that most of the public comment speakers addressed. Joe Imbriano, administrator of fullertoninformer.com even gave the council copies of several recent studies that detail the health risks of cell towers to the surrounding community.
Yet despite all of this, I was the only commissioner who voted against this agenda item. So now it goes before the city council for final approval. Unless all of us go to that meeting (it has not been put on the agenda as of yesterday) I suspect this cell tower will be approved.
Before the vote, I offered an alternative motion that the vote be delayed one month until our next meeting. At that time I recommended that AT&T could provide us with the proposed contract, the neighborhood group could provide the city with its final tally of all those against the project and members of the public could address the committee with a formal presentation of their concerns about the placement of this cell tower. The committee voted down that alternative motion.
I asked the members of the Park and Recreation Department present along with the other five committee members, what is the purpose of reviewing this cell tower proposal, if we do not have a contract and by law (the FCC) we are not to consider the health risks of our children and their parents that have been claimed by dozens if not 100’s of scientific studies throughout the world. Not surprisingly, no one provided me with an answer.
One last but vital point. Director Hugo Curiel reminded us that as a body we couldn’t consider the health effects of cell towers in making our decision to approve or reject the cell tower for Richman Park.
The FCC stands for the Federal Communications Commission. It has federal jurisdiction over interstate communications. Please tell me where such a group has the authority and the expertise to make it illegal to consider the potential negative and serious health effects of cell tower transmissions.
I for one stand tall and stand proud to state unequivocally that the FCC has no right to demand our silence on the issue of cell tower heath risks.
It was just another sad performance by people representing the city of Fullerton. It was sad because every concern, i.e. the lack of a contract, the health concerns and the wishes of many of the neighborhood residents, all ignored by our Parks and Recreation Department and its committee.
#1 by Randall on July 15, 2014 - 9:01 pm
I have been following the debates on the blog for some time now. The information presented here is very intriguing to say the least. This entry in particular really caught my attention and warranted my two cents to be thrown in. The telecommunications act of 1996 was one of the most despotic pieces of legislation ever enacted IMO.
It is my understanding that the FCC has set limits regarding occupational as well as individual radio frequency exposures. Those are their exposure guidelines in units of power density. It is also my understanding that their exposure guidelines only consider the point at which acute burning of tissue begins as the threshold of maximum exposure.
It is widely accepted in many scientific circles (not industry funded of course) that exposure to radio frequency emissions at levels much lower than what is permissible has been shown to have adverse impacts to biological systems. I believe the author has done an exhaustive search to ferret out some of the best material on this issue. The preceding post on the fire stations is extremely compelling.
What is most puzzling to me are the great lengths certain people will go to in order to ignore what is being done to them.
Where can I find a video recording of this meeting? It is not on the City’s web site.