Halfway around the world, Israel’s Ministry of the Environment has called for a review of how 4G infrastructure could increase public exposure to radiation. Excerpt from the official announcement:

…expanding the infrastructure is expected to increase the use of this technology, which may in turn increase the public’s overall exposure to cellular radiation. While the health implications of this radiation have not been sufficiently clarified, the precautionary principle dictates joint discussion and examination of the issue.

Windsor Hills residents in the unincorporated county area said they received no notice of any kind. Zoning investigator Andre Parvenu told a resident who inquired that the city of Los Angeles was not notified and issued no permits. Parvenue said the installation also exceeded height limits and violated other zoning restrictions.

Resident Sheila Smith is organizing a group to oppose this and a related string of T-Mobile sites in nearby county public rights-of-way. “If you are in a wheelchair, you can’t turn the corner at Angeles Vista and Slauson,” said Smith. “You have to go out in the street!”

Smith said that when crews showed up to start the installation, locals assumed the project had something to do with street drainage. “We feel we are a neighborhood under siege,” she said. “There are installations that have gone up near homes for several blocks.”

A similar T-Mobile installation along the public right-of-way in Sherman Oaks outraged citizens there who are still fighting to have it removed. Instead of working with the city and residents to find acceptable sites, T-Mobile is resorting to imposing equipment in the public right-of-way as allowed by current California Public Utilities Commission rules.

From the Board Agenda posted online:

Recommendation as submitted by Supervisor Ridley-Thomas: Direct the Interim Director of Planning, in coordination with the Acting County Counsel, to prepare an ordinance amending the County Code that is consistent with State and Federal law regarding the regulation of wireless telecommunication facilities, including the recent court rulings, to maintain the maximum amount of discretion allowed for controversial cases but allow for streamlined policies and permitting procedures for non-controversial projects; also take into consideration, among other things, aesthetic concerns, service gaps and needs and other relevant issues related to the permitting of wireless telecommunication facilities; direct the Interim Director of Planning to present the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for its review and consideration, make a recommendation to the Board on an ordinance, and report back in 90 days with a status report.

The motion itself cites the Ninth Circuit’s Sprint v. County of San Diego ruling and Palos Verdes Estates v. Sprint ruling, court interpretations Glendale has drawn on for its draft ordinance. In two recent community meetings on the subject, Glendale’s outside consultant and legal counsel have explained these rulings and their implications for cities with aesthetic and proliferation concerns related to wireless towers.

When Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers formed last year, the core committee contacted a Windsor Hills/View Park group which had been fighting a cell tower installation in the middle of its neighborhood. Part of unincorporated LA County and in Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ 2nd District, the neighborhood shared resources with Glendale and this year prevailed as the county denied the disputed permit application.

T-Mobile had applied in 2007 for a permit to install a tower on a small commercial property site leased to CVS Pharmacy (the company opposed the installation) surrounded by the View Park neighborhood (that also opposed the installation).

Although the property owner agreed on a lease with T-Mobile, surrounding residents had several objections. The plans exceeded local height requirements. The carrier’s proposal to attach equipment to a large wooden trellis was inconsistent with that structure’s original purpose of beautifying the parking area. The trellis attachment also raised several safety issues, as common sense would dictate when thinking about metal electrical equipment attached to a wooden structure.

Residents couldn’t find any evidence among local T-Mobile users of a coverage gap. They did find, and prove, that T-Mobile’s claimed 911 coverage gap in their area was greatly exaggerated and misleading. Their in-depth research on this subject was a great help to GOACT, who discredited the cell carrier’s claim that it needed to expand its wireless 911 coverage in Glendale.

After three hearings on the matter, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission denied the permit application by a 3-2 vote (reported here on this blog). T-Mobile appealed, and today the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors heard the matter as a de novo case, saw a crowd on hand to hear the proceedings, listened to comments by residents and supporters from other communities such as Glendale, and finally approved a motion by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to uphold the denial.

John Flynn, attorney for the applicant, addressed the board before residents spoke, saying that he has appeared at hearings all over California on cell tower installations, adding to the residents’ case by acknowledging that such installations are strongly opposed by communities throughout the state.

GOACT urged the commission to action, noting that the View Park community had come in force for hearing after hearing, only to have the matter postponed. At the last hearing, residents presented evidence that the tower wasn’t needed, that the location presented legal problems for the property owner, and that T-Mobile had provided incomplete and inaccurate information on its application. Today, strong evidence was presented again, and individuals representing a new California coalition of community groups fighting cell towers (including GOACT) showed up to support View Park/Windsor Hills.

One resident complained that a tower was installed on the parkway in front of his house, with no advance warning. Commissioners seemed confused as to how this could have happened without them knowing about it. GOACT members knew from their own case that the permit application must have gone through the public works entity of the county or city for installation on the right-of-way, which doesn’t require public hearings or planning review.

Commissioner Bellamy criticized T-Mobile’s property value report, with its appraisal estimates from a San Diego company, referencing an Escondido neighborhood. He wanted a local appraiser, who would focus on View Park, Los Angeles County. GOACT representative Elise Kalfayan told the commissioners that in Glendale, local real estate brokers in the immediate neighborhood were contacted, and all of them sent letters to the city council saying that a cell tower in front of a home would lower its property value.

Marguerite Lincoln described GOACT’s effort to canvass its neighborhood, and its discovery that there were few T-Mobile subscribers and almost no one was dropping their land line. GOACT member John McMahon urged the commission to focus on smart planning, taking a forward look at this issue. GOACT as a group recommended that the commission enact a moratorium to create a solid wireless ordinance for the county.

Commissioner Valadez echoed GOACT’s call for creating a comprehensive plan to address the growing number of wireless installation permits. The final vote to deny T-Mobile’s application was 3-2.

The commission chair commented that the applicant had until March 4, 2009 to appeal the decision, in which case it would be heard by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

The situation of cell tower proliferation requires changes in the laws at the state and federal level, and a change in attitude on the part of cell carriers. Carriers need to get the message, as they have in Glendale, that they must work with communities to find acceptable sites for towers.