Valley Center Planning Committee Finds Reasons to Chop Down Monopine

Located in California’s San Diego County, Valley Center’s Community Planning Committee has issued a 12-2 vote against a proposed 75-foot cell tower. The structure was slated to be disguised as a pine tree, and have addressed a coverage deficiency on Miller Road. As the Valley RoadRunner reports, the tower project was championed by retired Fire Chief, Barry Hutchings, who argued that an additional cell tower would be an asset to public safety.

“We want everyone to be able to dial 911,” stated Hutchings. “We are trying to fill the gaps, [in the network]. This would add a lot of bandwidth for public safety—which the public can use when emergency services are not using them.” He added that the FirstNet first responder network relies on strong connections between people in need and the first responders, and this requires a continuous network of towers, and acceptable places to situate them. The “ability [of cell towers] to ‘shake hands’ with each other is critical. So the willing landlord and the right distance is critical,” he explained.

However, some vocal neighbors who objected to the appearance of the cell tower, and raised phantom health concerns, attended the Planning Committee meeting to air their complaints, according to the Valley RoadRunner.

“If the federal government says there isn’t a health problem, there is nothing the County can do,” said Planner Kevin Smith, recognizing that neither the federal government nor the American Cancer Society believes that cell towers present an RF radiation hazard. “We can’t object because of health effects. We can’t use radiation as an objection.”

Chairman Delores Chavez-Harmes suggested that the Planners could take a different approach and instead argue that there was a problem with the application. She noted that if the tower applicants provided inaccurate information, the Planners could vote against the project. Declaring that the application did not properly factor in the tower’s height, the Planning Board determined that it did not meet zoning requirements and voted against it.