LAKEPORT — While hearing an Upper Lake woman”s appeal of a use permit from a major cellular company, the Lake County Board of Supervisors seemed confused over just how many cell towers there are in that community. Cheryl Little Deer filed the appeal to the Board of Supervisors a week after the commission”s March 8 approval. She contended that there were two such towers already in the Upper Lake area; Community Development Director Rick Coel said there was one. Ed Johnson, an associate RF engineer with U.S. Cellular, said there were none. A cellular tower on Mount Konocti currently covers most of the Northshore, he said. The thrust of Little Deer”s concerns had to do with electromagnetic radiation and radio frequency (RF) emissions, something she”s spent 12 years researching. She listed five points of contention, one of which was the effect the new tower would have on the county”s scenic corridor along Highway 20. The 120-foot tower is proposed on a 132-acre lot spanning three addresses listed in West Highway 20 in Upper Lake, which is ultimately accessible by a the smaller Dewell Road. Planning staff recommended denying the appeal, on the grounds that Highway 20 is not designated as a state scenic route by Caltrans, and is not designated “SC” by the county. But the Board of Supervisors chose ultimately to postpone its decision, citing the need for more information. While noting that that Little Deer”s concerns about electromagnetic and RF emissions were out of the county”s jurisdiction, Dist. 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington expressed a desire to see a “simulation” of the proposed tower on the site for aesthetic purposes, over which the county does have power of choice. In response to one of the five points of Little Deer”s appeal, Community Development Director Rick Coel pointed to the fact that the county”s hands are tied with respect to health concerns related to RF emissions, which is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Coel cited the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which says local governments cannot “regulate the placement, construction and modification of (telecommunication) facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” as long as they comply with FCC regulations. Whether or not the emissions in Lake County do comply is one point on which Dist. 1 Supervisor Ed Robey wanted to be clear. He questioned Little Deer about her claim that some cellular tower sites in the county were reported by OSHA to “emit excessive radition.” Johnson later clarified that out of eight U.S. Cellular towers in Lake County, six of them average a 60-watt usage. He compared that to an FM television transmitter, which he estimated might use up to 25,000 watts. When Robey asked county Council Anita Grand whether or not the FCC”s prohibition would prevent the board from looking out for the “health, safety and welfare of its constituents,” she said in relation to the emission of RF signals, it did. What the county can do, however, is look at how the tower would affect the surrounding area aesthetically. Little Deer was joined by several other Upper Lake residents, who expressed concern regarding RF emissions, possible reduction of property values and having to look out their kitchen windows at another cell tower. She also presented petitions signed by her neighbors to oppose the tower. Lake County resident Phil Murphy, who regularly speaks his mind on a range of issues on which the supervisors deliberate, posed the question, “How many cell towers do we want in Lake County?” He asked the board to consider forming a plan to address future requests. “As the technology evolves, the system will allow more users at a lower power rate,” said Johnson in late Tuesday interview. He noted that to carry a lower wattage use, more cell towers would need to be constructed.
By delaying a decision until June 19, Chairman Jeff Smith noted it would allow more time for information gathering by the Board.
Contact Tiffany Revelle at trevelle@record-bee.com.
