Citizen Opposes Cell Tower Request

To:  Chuck Wilson and the Mission Viejo Planning and Transportation Commission

As you are aware, AT&T wants to add a fifth cell tower in the Flo Jo Park area. (There are currently four in that area: one above Fire Station 31, two near the park shelter and one right across Alica at the SCE Chiquita Substation.)

I am opposed to the AT&T project for an added cell tower for Flo Jo Park on the basis of both aesthetics and health issues.

The MV Planning Commission previously heard this request and continued the hearing, seeking more information from AT&T.  Included in the hearing was a request for AT&T to contact adjacent  HOAs – Mission Viejo Environmental Association and Canyon Crest. I know that AT&T has not contacted or followed up with MVEA, and I doubt they did with Canyon Crest.

Please see the following on the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that (like Mission Viejo) sided with a community, ruling that city officials could bar the construction of unsightly cellular towers.

See the following: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ugly-telecoms26-2009oct26,0,5439620.story

I have extracted some key points for your review:

Like Palos Verdes Estates, San Francisco, San Diego County, La Canada Flintridge and other communities have fought the purveyors of cellular service in court on aesthetic grounds and, for the most part, have won. The recent legal disputes, planners say, could encourage telecommunications companies to develop more creative alternatives amenable to residents' concerns – or spur more litigation.

The judges quoted 19th century Viennese architect Camillo Sitte's lyrical waxings on beauty and art in a 1889 book that became a classic in urban planning. Their Oct. 13 ruling also pointed to a state utility code giving city leaders the right to define what might "incommode" the enjoyment of public right of way.

Sprint lost its suit against La Canada Flintridge in federal district court and, on appeal to the 9th Circuit, had the case sent back for further proceedings, according to City Attorney Mark W. Steres. But the telecommunications company has neither reapplied for antenna permits nor pressed its court case, Steres said. He said he viewed the Palos Verdes Estates ruling as endorsement of his position that city officials have the authority to regulate what is built on public property and can apply aesthetic considerations.
In addition, the 9th Circuit Court has previously ruled that if sufficient coverage is provided, added coverage by another company is not necessarily assured by the present FCC rules.

I am formally requesting that this information be added to the file for all the Commissioners and distributed to them well ahead of the scheduled November Planning Commission meeting. I am also requesting your feedback that this has been accomplished.

F. K. ( Joe) Holtzman
Mission Viejo