This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Cell Towers Approved, Homeowners Angry

The city approved plans to erect 11 more cell towers around the city despite homeowners protesting they don't want the unsightly poles, potential health hazards and light pollution.

A plan to build 11 telecommunication towers was approved, and residents are angry.

The Temecula Planning Commission approved the plan Wednesday during the final of four meetings at the Civic Center that will let 33 new towers go up through the city.

The towers aim to improve portable phone service and will be disguised as light poles, according to a city report.

Find out what's happening in Temeculawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Most of the planned locations are close to homes, and upset homeowners urged the commission to deny the plan.

“I would rather move than have my family and children subjected to the harmful effects of a cell tower looming over my home,” said Andy Denison, who lives in the Meadowview neighborhood.

Find out what's happening in Temeculawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Residents were concerned the towers may damage their health by receiving and transmitting electromagnetic radiation.

“I am just going to be blunt. I would like to know in which direction these EMF rays are going. I know we aren’t suppose to get into this because we are tied up by the FCC, but, that is my main concern,” resident John Foster said.

Because telecommunication is governed by the Federal Communication Commission, their laws and regulations take precedence over state and local governmental laws, according to City Attorney Bill Curley.

“For the most part, the city doesn’t have much discretion in this. Speculation and beliefs are anecdotal in the eyes of the federal government,” Curley said.

The plan

The towers are part of an antenna system, which is a low-profile system capable of delivering wireless telecommunications service to customers of multiple carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and MetroPCS, according to a city report.

The network initially will supply the infrastructure for NewPath’s anchor tenant, MetroPCS.

The network uses a series of low-power antennae, called “nodes,” which receive a signal through fiber optics from a central hub and distribute it through radio waves.

To read about the locations of the towers, .

Concerns raised

One after the next, homeowners got up to plead their case and express their concerns to the planning commission while the applicants’ attorneys sat quietly in the back taking notes.

Some were concerned about their property values falling because of the towers.

"My concerns are of this eyesore negatively affecting my property values," Harry Pollock, a Temecula resident, told the commission.

The damage to their property values may be irreparable, another resident wrote in a letter to the commission.

"The proposed antenna may create external obsolescence which is a form of depreciation caused by conditions outside the property itself.  Identifying external obsolescence is the primary purpose of neighborhood analysis within an appraisal. External obsolescence is virtually always incurable since it is beyond the control of the property owner," Temecula resident Lisa Engel wrote.

The process for discussing the plan was rushed, according to Foster and other residents.

The informational meeting offered by NewPath – the company planning the towers – was scheduled on a Thursday morning with little notice and when most people are working, they said.

Problems addressed

The planning commission worked with the applicant to make sure the poles would be placed a safe distance from the houses, said Matt Peters of the planning department.

“The cell towers are required to be 75 feet from the roofline of the structure,” he said.

Some residents were worried about the poles creating light pollution, so the planning department agreed to put covers on them to reduce light spilling into homes in previously dark neighborhoods.

Some residents were discontent with the changes the applicant agreed to make.

“I fought this the last time when they wanted to put this unsightly health hazard basically in my front yard,” said homeowner Andy Denison. “What they've done now is moved it to the side of my house so it technically wouldn’t be considered Meadowview.”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?