Good Communication Would Benefit Cellular Site Debate
Ever since the first telegraph wires inch-wormed their way across the prairie, modern technology has been etching lines and blemishes on the face of America.
Telephone wires helped turn urban streets into Jacob’s ladders and later, after aesthetic concerns forced such gear underground, cable TV companies began plowing up pavement and petunias to bring us our CNN and QVC.
Then came last year’s Telecommunications Reform Act, which gave federal blessing to the gold rush of opportunity in cellular phones, pagers and other varieties of wireless communication.
More companies entering the marketplace multiplied by new technology requiring more numerous (if smaller) antennas equals a snowballing demand for “cell sites.”
And communities all over Ventura County are fighting not to get bowled over.
Last year, Simi Valley passed an ordinance to limit the visual pollution. Last week, Oxnard declared a moratorium on antenna requests until it can draft a policy. The same night, Thousand Oaks eased its own moratorium a bit while proceeding full speed ahead to remove loopholes and vague language from its pending ordinance on the subject. The California Coastal Commission recently rejected a vigorously disputed antenna tower proposed for Faria Beach--but only because it too lacks an appropriate policy. That battle is far from over.
A spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. estimated that there are now 30,000 cellular phone antennas in the United States. His organization predicts that number will quadruple by 2002--an estimate that seems quite conservative given that each area could have eight, nine or more companies seeking to place antennas.
What’s a city council to do?
Not much, according to the Feds.
Objections usually fall into one of two categories: health and aesthetics. The Federal Communications Commission has taken any consideration of health risks out of the hands of local officials. As long as a given facility meets FCC standards for radiation, it’s legal.
Local governments may, however, place restrictions on what the antennas look like and where they are allowed--to a point.
“Cities can restrict location but there are technical needs such as how far apart the cell sites need to be in order for the system to work,” said Jeff Nelson, a spokesman for the industry group. “Where communities have enacted restrictions that keep those needs from being met, courts are striking them down.”
After a public hearing that stretched until midnight Tuesday, the Thousand Oaks City Council voted to end its moratorium on cell sites in industrial and commercial zones. But since those areas are mostly clustered along the Ventura Freeway, it’s clear that somehow, some way, antennas in residential areas, public land or open space are going to be necessary to maintain acceptable service as demand grows.
That worries neighbors of scenic Meadows Reservoir, the proposed site of an antenna they fear could grow into an eyesore to rival the mutant Erector Set of Rasnow Peak.
A representative of AT&T; showed the council photos of several small antennas disguised as street lamps or near-invisible architectural details on buildings, but conceded that larger antennas will be needed in many cases.
Such clever designs will help, but it will take mighty diplomacy on all sides to find a workable balance of interests. The Feds prohibit local governments from simply telling the companies to buzz off. But the companies need to respect local values too.
Ojai was right to reject a bid to stick an antenna into its cultural heart, Libbey Park. We applaud all city officials who are standing up for their communities’ concerns while working with the companies to limit the impact of necessary antennas.
It is the responsibility of those who would cash in on this gold rush to take extraordinary steps to minimize the damage they do--and the responsibility of local officials to make them.
