|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Danville Planning Commission on Tuesday is set to discuss a proposed Verizon Wireless tower in eastern Danville that has received push-back from some area residents concerned about radio frequency emissions and impacts on neighborhood property values.
Complete Wireless Consulting, on behalf of Verizon, has requested a land-use permit to add an unmanned telecommunications facility at a Lawrence Road property, consisting of a 56-foot-tall slim line pole and other associated equipment screened by a prefabricated shelter and 6-foot-high chain-link fence with privacy slats.
Town officials recommend permit approval, saying the project is consistent with standards outlined in Danville’s wireless communication facilities ordinance and noting a radio frequency (RF) report found the project complies with maximum allowable exposure limits regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
But some nearby residents disagree, and they’ve circulated an online petition opposing the proposed cell tower.
“We are living in our houses around the clock, day and night. We will be bombarded 24 hours a day with the RF microwave energy with no escape because it beams through our houses, giving our body no time to rest and to repair any tissue damages,” resident Ta Yen Ching said.
The online petition garnered 129 signatures as of early-afternoon Monday with a goal to reach 200, according to the document organized via change.org.
The proposed monopole tower, which would be painted dark green to blend in with surrounding vegetation, would be located within a 1,000-square-foot leased area at the rear end of 1455 Lawrence Road. The 1.83-acre property contains a single-family home and Breton’s School for Dogs and Cats.
The project would be located near the Monterosso housing development and within a two-mile radius of Diablo Vista Middle School, Tassajara Learning Center and Creekside Elementary School.
Ching contends the area is not an appropriate location for the telecommunications facility.
“Placing a cell tower in a low elevation canyon with surrounded houses all ‘at or above’ the height of the tower antenna is mind-boggling and a desperate act by both the tower company and the land provider,” Ching argued. “Why can’t Verizon find a mountainside on a remote hill to place an antenna high above for better transmission?”
Danville planning officials are satisfied that no feasible alternatives exist for the project “given the site location, the limited visibility from public view, alternative site analysis and RF report,” Crystal De Castro, the town’s project planner, wrote in her staff report to the Planning Commission.
About the emissions debate, De Castro noted that “local jurisdiction may not deny wireless communication facilities based on concerns regarding perceived adverse health impacts as a result of radio frequency emissions, as the emission levels are regulated by the federal government.”
The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the proposed Verizon tower is set for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday (July 28) in the Town Meeting Hall located at 201 Front St.
In other business
* The commission will discuss a minor subdivision request for a property down Lawrence Road.
Lawrence DSSI, LLC, wants permission to split an existing 3.27-acre residential parcel into three single-family residential lots.
The property, located at 1609 Lawrence Road, has a land-use designation of residential country estates (required one-acre lot minimum). Town planning staff recommends approval of the subdivision.
* Commissioners will also debate a request from Love Lane residents Steven and Ann Peltz to remove from their front yard a California sycamore tree that is protected under the town’s tree preservation ordinance.
Town administrative staff denied their removal request in May, a decision the Peltzes appealed to the Planning Commission. Town principal planner David Crompton recommends the commission deny the appeal and uphold the previous denial.
DanvilleSanRamon.com staff contributed to this report.
DanvilleSanRamon.com staff contributed to this report.
DanvilleSanRamon.com staff contributed to this report.
Crystal De Castro, Danville’s Project Planner, says, “The project site is located in a rural residential neighborhood.”
What a JOKE!!!
Yes, Brenton’s property is in a rural area. But it’s right next to one of those new high density neighborhoods, with hundreds of houses jammed in there like sardines.
That cell tower will be blasting those poor suckers in the face, day and night.
Danville says the Federal government won’t let them consider the health impacts of radio frequency emissions. The Feds say they’re safe, but that’s what they said about DDT and leaded gasoline. Maybe the Feds are right, but why shouldn’t Danville be able to choose for itself? Let this be a lesson to all you big government liberals who think Washington DC knows what’s best for Danville.
If people want to stop this tower, go after Brenton’s. Boycott them.
You don’t want to board your dogs at Brenton’s anyway. They put the dogs into little cement cells, kind of like a prison cell, only smaller. That’s cruel. That should be against the law.
I googled for the online petition, but didn’t find it. Can someone post the link? I’d sign it.
Everyone wants to use cell phones but no one wants cell phone transmission towers nearby. If they choose a large parcel, not next to a lot of houses, then they have done the best they can. If you use a computer, have a smart meter, watch tv, use a cell phone, or microwave, get x-rays at your dentist or doctor, use air travel, or live near any power lines, you are getting bombarded with radio frequency already.
Everyone, here is the link to the petition on change.org:
https://www.change.org/p/town-of-danville-danville-planning-commission-crystal-de-castro-project-planner-cdecastro-danville-ca-gov-vote-no-to-the-new-proposed-verizon-wireless-cell-tower-on-lawrence-road
Everyone, here is the link to this petition on change.org:
https://www.change.org/p/town-of-danville-danville-planning-commission-crystal-de-castro-project-planner-cdecastro-danville-ca-gov-vote-no-to-the-new-proposed-verizon-wireless-cell-tower-on-lawrence-road
You can also search on the words… Vote “No” to the new proposed Verizon Wireless cell tower on Lawrence Road
Mr. Glates…..I am not sure if you have actually looked at Brenton’s facility? They provide a run with inside and outside access unless your request is something else. Not everyone is able to have someone come to their home or in some cases they really don’t want anyone in their home while away! Our dog does travel with us, but when we need to board our dog we as always (for the past 22 years with 3 different dogs)been treated extremely well and she enjoys going to see Joyce and staff! She comes back to us happy and we feel treated well! As far as the cell tower…not my personal favorite and I would say no! Danville is an amazing place to live with changes and progress, I feel very proud to call it my home and to have raised my family here AND used Brenton’s!
One aspect that is being ignored is the sound (acoustics) of radio sites. Radio sites often have standby generators that start up at all hours of the day and night, and cooling fans (think of an old, noisy computer). There is, already, a pole mounted cell site along Lawrence road with a noisy set of cooling fans. It was placed with no regard to the neighbors (they picked the worst possible pole – either adjacent pole would have been better), and, in today’s technology, uses the worst mechanical technology – something akin to a cheap prototype. Not a decent colling design that is intended for use around residents and workers.
Additionally, no fiber service (U-Verse or Verizon) is available on Lawrence road – we are getting the drawbacks, but none of the benefit. At least give us some benefit. This is Danville, not South Africa. Quit acting like it is Soweto.
I say put any new site up on the hills near the water towers. Accee roads and electricity is already in place.
Mr. Herman Glates,
you need to come and look around a facility before you deem it cruel. Ive been bringing my pets to Breton’s For a very long time and they love it. i love it. as for the cell tower, it wont be in anyone’s way, hidden in the tree line so no one can see it, ive gone up on the hill and looked down where it would be you cannot see. i think its a great idea! finally some reception!!!
Actually, if the people who are concerned about the RF energy from the proposed cell tower are carrying their own cell phones around with them, their phones are exposing them to far more radiation than the tower. This is because the strength of the signal decreases with the square of the distance. (In short, the stronger tower signal is very attenuated, even for a relatively nearby tower, compared to the signal from the phone in your pants pocket or purse.) And, since the cell phone’s transmit power will be reduced when it gets a strong signal from the tower, you end up with the paradoxical situation that living CLOSER to a cell tower can result in lower total exposure.
The below link goes into more detail on the relative power-levels, and the math….
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/10/living-closer-to-a-cell-tower-means-lower-rf-exposure/
That said, if the people who are concerned are non-cell-phone carriers, then they at least have an argument. But, if they ARE cell phone carriers, then they might want to petition for the tower to be closer, not farther!
(Note that the above makes no judgement, one way or another, on the broader question of whether cell phone signals are harmful, or not. It is just looking at the relative levels of the RF energy from the tower, versus from the phone.)
You really need to attend the Planning Commission meeting TONIGHT 7/28/2015 at 7:30PM in the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street to make your voice heard!!
You’re just spinning your wheels here on this website.
The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month
C-Mudge,
Your article says living closer to a cell tower can result in lower total exposure because being close to the tower allows your cell phone to transmit several times lower because the phone doesn’t need to “shout” to be heard by the cell tower.
But this assumes that your phone is talking to that tower and not some other tower. This new cell tower is for Verizon, right? What if you use AT&T (or Sprint or whatever)? Doesn’t your cell phone need to talk to an AT&T tower? So, you’d be exposed to the AT&T tower, your AT&T phone, and now the new Verizon tower.
I left my dog at Breton’s once before I knew better. She came back hoarse, probably from barking so much. Walk down Lawrence Road sometime. You can hear those little pups yapping non-stop. Poor things. Neighbors must LOVE Bretons, first with the non-stop barking and now this tower.
It is clear from this debate that what used to be NIMBY (not in my backyard) has become BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone)!!
Extremely disappointed to see the Planning Commission approve the cell tower at last night’s meeting. The majority of the residents do not approve, yet the Danville Planning Commission approves the installation of the cell tower anyway at the Brenton’s Dog Kennel property. This is what happens when our planning commission is appointed and not elected–they certainly do not support the wishes of the community in which they serve! The one who really benefits is the land owner where the cell tower is located and that comes with big fat checks rolling in every month of thousands of $$,$$$. This approval also allows additional wireless communications companies to collocate antenna equipment and antennas at this site.
Shame on you Danville Planning Commission.
What a terrible neighbor you are Brenton.
Reference Danville Planning Commission Staff Report 5A dated July 28, 2015 link here: http://docs.ci.danville.ca.us/WebLink8/0/doc/170364/Electronic.aspx
Good morning,
Just wanted to chime in for a moment and correct a misapprehension. miSFit posted that the Planning Commission approved the cellular tower during the Tuesday meeting. Actually, the commission voted to postpone the issue and sent the proposal to the Design Review Board. There is an update article on the Express http://danvillesanramon.com/news/2015/07/29/danville-commission-postpones-verizon-tower-decision.
Have a great day.
Geoff.
Geoff Gillette
Public Information Coordinator
Town of Danville
(925O 314-3336
ggillette@danville.ca.gov.
Hey misfit- nice MiSFire on that one.
I see no reason to get personal by attacking the Breton business, I have kept my dogs there many times and they have had excellent treatment. I have lived on this road since 1978 and Breton’s and the dogs were here before that. Go by any kennel and you will hear barking dogs especially at feeding time. My late husband owned a veterinary practice and when he sold it we chose Breton’s to board our dogs and have NEVER regretted it. It is sad to see this kind of attack.
There is already an older cell site on Lawrence Road…this one uses newer and better protected technology. I would worry more about the RF signals from your phone, WiFi, Microwave, etc. inside your home.
those of you fearing RF exposure may want to read what the American Cancer Society has to say…http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers
The argument of cell phone gives more harm than living near cell tower is without the consideration of the time factor. You use your phone may be 30 minutes a day ( I use even less, my last bill showed only 75 minutes for the whole month), but you are bombarded 24/7 living near the tower. Go figure the dose you receive. And if the tower is really safe, why there is a De Facto rule in California that cell towers are never to be built at or around elementary schools? Have you seen one near elementary school? Because people consciously understood the 20 years old rule of FCC was based on short term laboratory data extrapolated into long term safety, and there has never been a real long term study of following a group youngsters for 20 years.
Besides, this is a very unique case different from all others. We all know that municipality can’t turn down cell tower application because Rf health concerns as long as it is below FCC allowed max. However, city or town should do their best to professionally evaluate the validity of the applications. Most cities and counties approve the application based on two key issues ; 1) is there a real wireless coverage gap? And 2) is the proposed new tower the least intrusive means to address the coverage gap? Unfortunately the answer for both questions is “no”.
There is no coverage gap for wireless in the targeted area Verizon claimed to serve. All other cell companies use the same nearby ( only about 2000 ft away) cell tower at 51 Hidden Hill place and pay a lease fee, and customers of AT&T, T mobile, and Sprint all receive very satisfactory cell reception. Why can’t Verizon collocate their antenna at the same existing tower but have to have his own tower to play with? Do they know not every cell company is entitled to have their own tower in a congested residential area? Have the planning committee done enough to question their reason? You answer is as good as mine.
The set up of this tower is mind boggling to the extreme as well. While claimed it is situated in a one acre minimal size rural residential area implying it is hardly anyone there except all the dogs in the boarding school, it is located at the very east end of the property and right on the Danville/ Contra Costa county line. The densely populated Monterosso which houses 368 homes is only 250 ft away at the nearest point. Worst of all, the tower antenna is facing the crowded CCC residents at their eye level because the 56 ft tower is built on a ground 60-75 feet below Monterosso.
You would have thought that Monterosso residents have a lot to say in the approval process, but the strong opposition was met with indifference and the conclusion of tabling the decision and pushed back to the design committee to deal “only ” with the tower design issue (to make it look less conspicuous) was very disappointing and devastating to the residents. Apparently the county has no jurisdiction of land use 10 yards beyond its border.
We are working to make both the city and Verizon to reconsider the proposal as more facts emerge and becoming more apparent. Verizon should consider using collocation on existing tower and back off from wanting their own tower (so they can rent to other carriers later?). If they have to have it, it should be as further away from high density Monterosso as possible, and certainly not to have antenna at the face level of our young children.
Hey @Nice — You obviously didn’t read the Danville Planning Commission Meeting Summary–They did approve it. Read it here: http://docs.ci.danville.ca.us/WebLink8/0/doc/170364/Electronic.aspx
Now, the Design Review Board is meeting about it this Thursday 8/13/2015 at 5:30pm.
“Monopine” cell tower anyone? See it here on the town’s website: http://docs.ci.danville.ca.us/WebLink8/0/doc/170417/Electronic.aspx
Is the surrounding neighborhood attending this meeting?
Brenton, you can be a good neighbor and stop this — Do not be fueled by greed.
Danville city does not have to cave in to Verizon’s proposal of erecting their own Tower in an already well served area simply because the tower’s radiation meets FCC standard.
Danville and any town can revoke applications based on the fact that there is no need of adding another intrusive Tower when there is existing tower 2000 ft away on 51 Hidden Hill Place for collocation. AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint all collocate their antennas at this tower and provided excellent service to the proposed coverage of Lawrence Road area. When there is no real Coverage Gap, why should the city allow Verizon to build their own tower so close to the densely populated residential area?
It is not citizens’ “not in my backyard” syndrome, it is Cell Companies’ ” I want my own toy syndrome”. If we don’t stop this one, towers will be everywhere and citizens’ voice would be drown every time by perceived “Federal Regulation”!
Please come to the planning commission Tuesday 9/22 at 7:30 to help us stop the installation of the 60 foot cell tower near our homes!