CLEAR LAKE RIVIERA — The Lake County Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday to approve the construction of a cell tower in the Clear Lake Riviera.
The tower is being opposed by a group of residents and property owners who live near the approved site in subdivisions 10, 11 and 12 of the Clear Lake Riviera. At least a dozen residents lined up to speak at the commission meeting Thursday, and two of them confirmed following the meeting that the group plans to file an appeal of the commission’s action.
District 5 Commissioner Daniel Suenram, who lives in the Clear Lake Riviera, made the motion to approve the tower, which was supported by the other three commissioners present Thursday: Bob Malley, John Hess and Dan Camacho. Newly-appointed commissioner Batsulwin Brown, who replaced now-supervisor EJ Crandell earlier this month, was not present.
Residents in attendance Thursday described various ways in which the tower would, in their view, negatively affect the area around it. Aesthetics including lake view blockage by the 85 foot tower, biological resource degradation including impacts to birds in the area, air quality issues during construction, and lowered property values were among the concerns raised.
The potentially harmful health effects of radio frequency emissions from cell towers were the subject of much concern brought up by residents Thursday, though the planning commission was limited in its ability to make a decision based on these potential effects by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
An image of the relevant text of that act was projected onto a screen above where residents lined up to speak Thursday. The act has effectively barred local governments from denying permits for cell towers based on health concerns, despite prevalent concerns of this kind among many members of the public.
The tower’s potential to increase fire danger was a recurring topic in public comment, and was a concern also voiced by Commissioner Suenram, who said early in the discussion that fire danger was very high around the site of the tower, due to flammable chamise brush and the proposed tower’s proximity to homes. In addition, Suenram noted that very few evacuation routes exist for residents of the subdivisions which surround the tower site on three sides.
“If you were to have a fire start right there in that particular area, you’re going to trap residents in there,” he said. Suenram was concerned that a tower in that site could be knocked over by strong winds and cause a rapidly spreading wildfire.
Greg Guerrazzi, a spokesperson for the site’s tower developer and permit applicant Horizon Tower, countered that “these towers do not fall over.” Guerrazzi added that “the chances for any fire igniting within the compound are nil because there isn’t any equipment in there that generates any sparks.”
Guerrazzi also said that the project site, which is situated in a relatively low spot in the surrounding terrain, had been chosen by Horizon because of that fact, not in spite of it. He said that low sites like this one give better coverage in the immediate areas around them.
Cell phone reception in the area was stated to be poor by the tower developer, Commissioner Suenram, and others at the meeting. Meanwhile, many residents claimed their cell phone service is good.
“I’ve never had a problem with cell coverage,” one resident said. “We don’t need a cell tower there.”
The tower site is located on a 39 acre parcel of rural-residential land owned by Richard Gubera, who was in attendance Thursday. One resident had called out Gubera for seeking to make money from the tower being constructed on his lot.
Gubera confirmed he would be paid by Horizon Tower in exchange for the tower’s construction.
“There’s compensation for this, but it’s not as much as they’re saying,” Gubera said, referring to the resident’s comment. “It’s not going to change my life.” Gubera added that he “would love to live here” in Lake County. “I know these people’s concerns, but I have the most to lose because I’m the closest to the tower.”
Gubera said he lives in Walnut Creek.
Commissioner Hess said prior to the commission’s decision to approve the tower that “our hands are really tied with something like this,” referring to the Telecommunications Act.
Following the approval, Commissioner Suenram said that he believes more cell towers are needed in the area, but admitted he was not confident that the chosen site was the best one available.
“I feel that there is a need for more towers,” he said. “I still believe higher is better. In my opinion, higher and out of sight is better than down and in the heart of everything.”
Suenram added that as a resident of the area that will be affected by the tower, he has experienced poor cell phone service. He said he was “torn” in his decision.
“I really feel for the residents. I do believe there are possible health effects, but I also believe that it’s still speculative.”
The use permit approved Thursday will need to also be approved by the Lake County Board of Supervisors before construction can begin. Suenram noted that the board of supervisors will have more power to consider residents’ concerns when they make their decision regarding the tower.
