By Mary O’KEEFE

It was standing room only at the Crescenta Valley Town Council last Thursday night. The council was hosting a candidates’ forum for the then-upcoming election; however, the majority of the audience in attendance was more interested in discussing the proposed AT&T cell site attachment to a utility pole just north of 4704 Briggs Ave.

Several community members spoke in opposition of the cell attachment; none present spoke in favor of the project. Opponents were there mainly to ask the CVTC to write a letter to the Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning Commission against the proposal. Those who spoke voiced concern about health issues, which, under federal law, cannot be taken into consideration when taking discretionary action on a wireless Conditional Use Permit as long as the facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations.

At the beginning of the discussion, Councilmember Mike Claessens said he felt a discussion on the Briggs tower was “inappropriate, confusing and will not help.” He said this based on the prior approval in August by the Land Use Committee of the cell site attachment.

Some history: AT&T has been attempting to get approval to build a new cell tower in the Crescenta Valley. Proposed sites have included residential streets and Dunsmore Park. Each time residents have rebuked the efforts. After a couple of failed attempts stretching back four years, AT&T finally got approval from the Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning in August 2018. This was not a tower, as past projects had proposed, but a small cell antenna. It measures about two feet tall and one foot wide and attaches to a utility pole already in place. It is to provide coverage for cell users within 500 feet of the installation.

An earlier Land Use Committee meeting was held concerning the cell attachment. The Land Use Committee reports back to the CVTC. Many of the CVTC members were present at the LUC meeting. There was little to no opposition to the cell attachment at that time. But, according to those who were at Thursday’s meeting and opposed the project, the date of that LUC meeting had been changed with little notice to the public.

Prior to the project’s approval at a May 17 CVTC meeting, the Council sent a letter to the Dept. of Regional Planning with no recommendation either in favor of or opposition to the cell attachment. After its approval, residents filed an appeal, which is where the decision sits presently.

At Thursday’s meeting, Karin Kim, a community member and lawyer, spoke to the Council urging it to draft a letter in opposition of the project. The appeal will be heard on Dec. 5; Kim and others who oppose the proposed project asked for community members, and the CVTC, to write letters by Nov. 20 to Regional Planning with their comments and concerns. That date has since been extended, according to Kim, to Nov. 28. The appeal hearing is still on Dec. 5 at 9 a.m.

At Thursday’s CVTC meeting, Claessens felt it was inappropriate to discuss the Briggs location since the Council had already sent a letter to Regional Planning. However, in the end, the Council did agree to listen to the concerns that, at times, referred to the Briggs location specifically and to cell tower issues in general.

The one thing that was agreed upon by all concerning cell towers is what the Briggs approval means to future sites proposed for cell attachments and towers.

“For me what has made an impact [is] we are sort of on the front lines. I don’t want to focus on Briggs, but it does make an impact. If we let [in] one would that open us up with more and more [cell towers/attachments] coming?” asked Councilmember Aram Ordubegian.

That was Kim’s concern as well; could this approval set precedence?

Regional Planning spokesman Mitch Glaser told CVW that issue and others that have been presented in the appeal will be considered when the commission makes its decision.

“We look at the cellphone maps and the [companies’] need to demonstrate that they need the coverage,” Glaser said. “We look at the aesthetics and if it is compatible with [the neighborhood].”

Although Regional Planning looks at these issues on a case-by-case basis, Glaser said, they will take into consideration if one project is approved and another similar one is later proposed. Approval would have to be fair.

Councilmember Daniel Kim said he would like to find out what could be done in the future concerning cell towers and what conditions Los Angeles County already has in place.

In general, all councilmembers wanted to revisit the subject of cellphone towers/attachments in the future by inviting to a meeting representatives from cell technology companies and residents with a variety of opinions.

Kim said that, although she appreciated the Council’s focus on future meetings, for the Briggs project time was running out with the comment deadline looming and the appeal decision only weeks away.

The Council had repeatedly spoken about opinions on both sides; Kim said she and others in the neighborhoods had been able to gather 220 signatures, both online and written, opposing the project.

“[I] went door-to-door and got signatures in a 500 foot radius of the [proposed Briggs project] and, out of the people we were able to reach, 93% object to the transmitter,” Kim said.

In the end, the CVTC members debated with council President Harry Leon about writing a letter to Regional Planning asking for a six-month moratorium. That, however, would not work since the project’s appeal will come before the court on Dec. 5 and a decision must be made at that time.

“If the County doesn’t approve it in a certain number of days it will be rubber stamped,” Kim added. “Without the Town Council support we are certain it will be passed.”

Councilmember Kyle Studebaker shared her concern about the time pressure and not wanting to make an uninformed decision.

A member of the audience shared that this issue was similar to AT&T’s attempt to erect a 70-foot cell tower at 5041 Cloud Ave. in 2014. At that time, the discussion concerned the AT&T proposed site on a piece of property owned by CV Water District and near about 10 residences. The residents raised the same concerns including health issues and safety from strong winds knocking over the pole. In the end CVWD decided to withdrawal the approval, and AT&T backed out of the proposal.

Ordubegian made a motion that stated, “After hearing from various community members and reviewing a newly submitted petition with over 200 signatures from the community, by way of an unanimous approval of a motion, the Crescenta Valley Town Council at its regularly scheduled Nov. 15, 2018 general meeting, agreed to send a letter to the appropriate County agency considering the approval, appeal and/or installation of Conditional Use Permit for a 5G cell tower on Briggs Avenue requesting that any such approval, appeal and/or installation be postponed to allow the Crescenta Valley Town Council to revisit this issue and conduct additional outreach to the entire community to determine the extent and scope of the support or opposition to 5G cell technology in our community.”

Whether that will prompt the Commission to reject or postpone the appeal will be seen on Dec. 5.

Letters and comments must be received by Nov. 28 at close of business in order to be included in the review. Comments can be made at the meeting on Dec. 5 at 9 a.m. at Regional Planning Commission, 320 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, 90012.

  Mary Okeefe