From a San Marino resident:

I am very frustrated that the meeting ended punctually at 7:15pm and did not allow 9 members of the public to comment.  I have been to lots of public meeting and this is the first time this has happened where they just threw away the comment cards.  They let that one Huntington Middle School teacher go way beyond the 3 minutes and the pro-tower experts had more then their fair share of time.  Inpast meetings they would ask if the remaining people who handed in public comment cards would talk for 1-2 minutes.  At one minute the meeting would only last 9 minutes longer.  That was the other disadvantage of having a meeting at dinner time.  Everyone wanted to have their dinner.  

The point I made to the writer Joe Piasecki is that if the law only requires compliance of RF emissions through checking calculations or by one initial RF reading just after it is built then how does anyone know if they are complying with FCC standards 24 / 7 ?  It makes tonight one big meaningless discussion.  How does school board know from just 2 reading in the last 6 years the first cell site has been in compliance 24 / 7 ?

The Wireless Industry is sneaky and always obfuscate data to get what they want.  Tonight the School Board looked really bad.  Honestly what do they expect when people are now stuck for 25 years with this ugly cancer producing equipment. 

The parents need to understand that State and Federal laws make that cell site a CO-LOCATION opportunity.  Depending on how the City defines Co-Location the entire Maintenance yard could be used to place more cell sites.  The City of Pasadena's Ordinance defines it very broadly making it a pro wireless Ordinance.  The state mandates co-location so once you place one cell tower then you have to legally give EQUAL ACCESS to all the wireless companies.  Only the original wireless company for a cell tower has to file a permit application.  All other wireless companies can co-locate on the same pole without any public notification. 

RE:  CELL TOWERS PUBLIC STUDY SESSION

October, 23, 2012

My name is XXXXXX and I have been a homeowner in San Marino for 20 years (since 1992).  I moved to this area from Pasadena because of the excellent San Marino school system.

MY PAST EXPERIENCE WITH CELL TOWERS:

After I saw a PUBLIC NOTICE for a cell site near my home in December 2006, I then became a community advocate, I spearheaded the movement to fight the proposed cell site near my home and later I fought for a Pasadena Wireless Moratorium and later an Ordinance.

I participated in many of the Glendale City Council hearings when they were drafting their Wireless Ordinance.  After mapping all of the existing cell sites in Glendale it was found that RF emissions from 3 cell sites were above the FCC standards for RF emissions.  This is on the public record for the Glendale City Council.

FUTURE CELL SITE AT PROPOSED GYM, RECREATIONS FACILITIES AT SAN MARINO CENTER:

Article:  City to Consider Gym, Recreation Facilities at San

SAN MARINO NEWS

By Mitch Lehman

http://www.sanmarinotribune.com/tribune/read/publisher_02/2007-07-11.04

In this article published on July 2007, there is a description of the proposed amenities the new gym will have:

The City Manager at the time, Matt Ballantyne said, “This includes a gymnasium, full sized classroom, a stage in the gym, restrooms, locker rooms and a day care facility.  We also included a tower that could be used as an elevator or possibly as a cell phone tower.”

I attended the Athletic Advisory Committee meeting on July 16, 2007 and spoke to the Committee about my disapproval of the future cell site at the gym.

Was SMUSD trying to sneak another cell site at the future Gym?  How many more will be enough to provide the maximum amount of lease money for SMUSD?

STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS PROTECT WIRELESS COMPANIES AND MANDATE PROLIFERATION AT ANY CELL SITE:

With State and Federal laws that MANDATE CO-LOCATION and EQUAL ACCESS TO ALL CARRIERS, SMUSD has opened the door to cell antenna PROLIFERATION at our schools.

There are cumulative RF emissions from multiple towers.  SMUSD is trying to create an antenna farm on our school campuses so they can generate lease money for the cell sites. 

NOT ALL FAMILIES FEEL SAFE BUYING IN SAN MARINO WHEN THE SCHOOLS HAVE CELL SITES NEAR THE KIDS:

I was in a group at St. Elizabeth Church in Altadena that wanted to place a 50 foot cell tower in the school play yard.  During the CUP application the public was notified that a T-Mobile cell tower would be at their school.

One family who lived the closest to the proposed cell site quickly listed their house for sale.  They sold their house and moved away before the application was decided.

The more active and prominent families of the school were involved with the cell tower fight.  Some eventually left the private school and went to other schools. About 6 families left the school. 

What was sad was that the St. Elizabeth group eventually won their fight and the school never put up the cell tower and never exposed the kids at the school to harmful RF emissions.  I jumped into that fight because it was the only church designed by the prominent architect Wallace Neff.

NO REGULATIONS TO ENFORCE MAINTENANCE OR ANNUAL RF MONITORING OF CELL SITES:

The cell companies are not required after the initial installation to maintain or monitor the antenna installations.  Any mention of concerns of negative health effects from RF emissions is exempt as a reason by the federal government to disallow an application for a cell antenna.  The FCC has guidelines on how much is an acceptable range for RF exposure to humans which is higher than most countries but the FCC makes no regulations to maintain the cell sites or regularly monitor RF emissions. 

The only time the cell sites are checked is after the initial installation and with a 20 – 30 year lease it basically means these cell sites are never checked.  After that there is no further required monitoring of RF emissions, I cannot be convinced that my child is safe near a cell site in the United States.

MY QUESTION ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RF EMISSIONS AND EXEMPTION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS: 

If it is not harmful to be exposed RF emissions, then why is any mention of negative health effects from RF emissions exempt from public comment during any permit hearing throughout the United States? 

The FCC has basically taken away my First Amendment Rights to talk freely about negative health effects of RF emissions and any Wireless application going through a permitting process is also exempt from CEQA review.

This makes me suspicious about the Telecom’s power to limit public comment and there is minimal regulation of their industry.  In my experience of heading or participating in at least 13 different cell fights, the wireless industry is only looking for profits and health and safety are not considered.

EVER INCREASING DEMAND FOR VOICE, DATA AND APPS:

I suspect that all the Wireless companies are boosting RF signals during peak times of usage in order to fill the increasing need for coverage.  From the time the SMUSD cell sites were installed the public has become dependent on using their cell phones 24/7.  So when the first cell tower was placed in 2006 the RF output of the cell towers has increased and has increased the exposure to our kids.  SMUSD should have done their due diligence and from the very beginning had regular independent monitoring of the cell sites on their campuses. 

LACK OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

There was NO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE CELL TOWER APPLICATIONS FOR ANY OF THE SMUSD CELL TOWERS.  The large cell tower at Huntington Middle School was sneaked in after returning from a Christmas in 2007. My son and I were shocked to see it there when he returned from holiday to Huntington Middle School.

If I had been notified of the proposed cell tower I would have DISAPPROVED of the building of any cell site on any SMUSD campus. Once SMUSD signed the cell tower lease, it allowed cell tower proliferation at the campuses that have a cell tower because of a California state law that requires co-location on existing cell towers.  It is the law that you have to allow EQUAL ACCESS to all Wireless carriers.
I don't want my property value to decline because SMUSD has become less desirable because of a real or even perceived danger to the students of SMUSD from RF emissions emitted from the cell towers thus stigmatizing the schools and ultimately negatively impacting my property value.  I would like to see the current cell sites dismantled and taken away so that the SMUSD CAMPUSES CAN BE CELL TOWER FREE.

SMUSD SHOULD HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN NOTIFYING THE PARENTS OF SMUSD.  We could have all avoided this conflict if you had allowed the parents to be a part of the decision making process of placing these cell sites on our campuses.  ONE OF SMUSD’s valuable resources are its PARENT EXPERTS and SMUSD should not have ignored the valuable input they could have provided.  I am sure they would have disapproved of the project from the start. 

MY PROPERTY VALUE:

My San Marino home is the furthest away from any of the SMUSD cell sites.  If someone wants to buy my house for the excellent schools like I did in 1992 it will have a negative impact to my property value if they do not want to send their kids to a school with many giant cell towers.

The City of San Marino has the strictest building codes.  How is a 75 foot cell tower in the area of San Marino that has the most expansive views allowed to happen without public notification?  Now the viewshed is ruined by a looming ugly fake pine tree (formerly a palm tree) and what was once an elegant and well planned community is marred by this fake pine.

PARENTS LEFT OUT OF CELL SITE DECISION MAKING:

I had 2 kids that attended SMUSD from K-12.  All the parents have always made ends meet for the school district.  Anytime they have a fundraiser, they put out the thermometer on Huntington Drive to show how much money was raised for the schools and in a short amount of time they reach their monetary goal. 

As soon as I saw the Huntington Middle School cell tower after the Christmas break in January 2007, I stopped donating to the San Marino Schools Foundation.  This was my PERSONAL BOYCOTT about the cell sites at our schools.  Later when I saw the cell site at the High School I felt justified that I made the right decision. 

If SMUSD wants to cell out to the wireless industry without considering the kids health and safety then they don’t need my money.  I did forget and donated during one of the leaner years of the recession but have pretty consistently maintained my boycott of the San Marino Schools Foundation.  During that time we donated generously to the clubs that I thought had made a positive impact for my kids.

The SMUSD Board of Education is an elected position. During the next election I will not vote for the Board members that were responsible for not including parents in the decision making about the placement of cell sites on our campuses.  I will also take this anti-cell tower stance when I vote for the San Marino City Council.