For months, Sunrise Terrace Mobile Home Park residents in Arroyo Grande have argued against the construction of a 55-foot-tall Verizon Wireless cell tower.
In February, the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission heard Verizon’s proposal to install a new “stealth wireless communications facility.” The facility would be concealed within a 55-foot faux water tower, located at 789 Valley Road within a 540-square-foot lease area, and enclosed with a chain link fence, according to the staff report.
“The location was selected with several considerations in mind, including technical requirements as defined by radio frequency engineers, topography, radio frequency propagation, elevation, height, access, aesthetics, feasibility of colocation and alternative sites, and amenability of the property owner regarding the negotiation of ground space,” the staff report states.
The staff report also states that the water tower design was selected to minimize visual and negative impacts. However, many residents living at Sunrise Terrace—a mobile home park for those 55-and-older—claim that the proposed cellphone tower would be an eyesore and too close to their properties, and would result in irreversible effects.
“I just want to make one point and that is regarding the loss of value. I heard everything that was said and what can be taken into consideration and what can’t, but you can’t unhear information that you get,” Sunrise Terrace resident Martin Lowy said during public comment on Feb. 6. “Most of us that live in Sunrise Terrace will not die there, most of us will move to some kind of long-term care facility or move in with relatives, which requires money.”
Lowy added that building the tower so close to the community would result in a loss of property value for Sunrise Terrace residents, money they are hoping to make last for residential care later.
Resident Shirley Daniels agreed with Lowy and said that this could even be seen as a case of discrimination against the elderly.
“We probably won’t be around for 10 or 15 years; the impact on us and maybe our whining and crying won’t affect you,” she said. “However, there’s also a subdivision across the street from us that’s low-income. So why is this site chosen for impact? Regardless of what minimal impact it is.”
After 31 speakers took to the public comment mic on Feb. 6, the Planning Commission denied the project due to findings that the project was inconsistent with telecommunication requirements and the city’s general plan.
“Specifically, the location of the proposed facility regarding unreasonable interference with views, incompatibility with surrounding architecture, failure to demonstrate the infeasibility of colocation, and the lack of substantial landscaping to obscure the facility,” a staff report from the following Planning Commission meeting said.
At the July 23 City Council meeting, City Attorney Isaac Rosen told Sunset Terrace residents—who were present and wearing shirts that said “Old Lives Matter”—that Verizon Wireless had appealed the Planning Commission’s February decision.
“The tolling agreement was meant to provide a good faith time period by which Verizon could evaluate a potential alternative site,” he said. “At this time, I know city staff is working diligently with Verizon to follow up on the status of that application.”
A tolling agreement, which is an extension of time for processing the application, was granted to Verizon to explore alternative sites such as St. John’s Church. The church had previously written to Verizon to express interest in hosting the cell tower. The church also had a representative at the Feb. 6 Planning Commission meeting to reiterate that interest.
City Manager Matthew Downing told the public that city staff contacted Verizon on July 12 regarding what information it needs from the city in order to facilitate a new application, but the city had yet to hear back from the company. Δ
This article appears in Aug 1-11, 2024.
“Resident Shirley Daniels agreed with Lowy and said that this could even be seen as a case of discrimination against the elderly.”—Wowza, when you can’t make a logical argument, pull that one out. Nice Try!
Perhaps the Sunrise Terrace residents could all offer to discontinue their Cellular plans, regardless of carrier, to lesson the data load and do their part to mitigate data needs that would require this project. You know, show commitment to your cause.
Of course there is always the option to take your “mobile homes” on the road to elsewhere.
So many ridiculous claims by the residents, where do you even begin? I guess we can start with the claims about loss of property value. These manufactured homes are extremely desirable due to their low HOA, and most importantly, $0 a month space rent. Because of this, these homes have DOUBLED in value in just 8 years. Further, there is no evidence that telecoms infrastructure (especially when it is screened like this proposal) reduces property values. If anything there is a positive effect on property values in areas where existing cell coverage may be limited.
The claim that a cell tower is discrimination towards old people as claimed by Shirley Daniels and Martin Lowy would be laughable if it was not so grossly insensitive to marginalized people who have had no choice but to be subjected to living near toxic heavy industry. Using this as an argument is almost as shameful as those who used cancer patients as the butt of their argument during prior meetings about this project.
Finally, why do these residents believe that their neighbors in the nearby subdivision don’t deserve investments in local infrastructure? It seems that once again, the residents of Sunrise Terrace are trying to use those less fortunate than them to build their poor argument.
I agree with the comment by John; would the residents be willing to give up access to cellular usage in their area? Would they be willing to not complain when service costs go up because of the delays caused by their unchecked nimbyism? Will they not complain when other infrastructure projects like road improvements and water upgrades in the City of AG are constantly delayed because of neighborhood opposition? One of the arguments that these people used was that they wont live here forever, so why try to stop a public good for those that will live here in the future?
Interesting that the people making comments think it’s fine to put grandma and grandpa’s bedroom 100 feet under a cell tower with 18 antennas spewing radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day. It’s proven it’s a health hazard causing everything from headaches to cancer to heart issues. Senior citizens are more susceptible too- seniors are a vulnerable population just look at what Covid-19 does to us. But I guess you and Verizon don’t care about us or your grandparents either? The truth is Verizon did not do their due diligence before they put in this application. There were all sorts of errors on the initial application. In fact, they claimed they considered placing the tower on Peaceful Point on the side of the Mesa and it is a good location. Just ask AT&T and a number of other carriers who have towers shooting RFR out across Arroyo Grande. Looks like Verizon didn’t want to go to the expense of putting it there. It was easier to put it over grampa’s head.
Zoning is an important issue too and there is a flat location a short distance away that is “publicly zoned”. It will work great for that cell tower. In fact, there are probably several other locations as appropriate if Verizon representatives negotiated with local farmers for a spot in a field -just like the ones you see in the Central Valley. But are they willing to pay the farmers a decent price?
We’ve heard from Verizon subcontractors that Verizon is very stingy in spite of being a multi-billion dollar corporation. Again, they don’t care what they do to grandpa.
These towers should not be placed 100 feet from anyone’s house. If you care to educate yourselves go to the environmental health trust website. There you can read hundreds of scientific studies. you can read why these towers have been pulled out of fire stations across America because the firemen got sick from sleeping under radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day. You can also read about the impact on property values. The reality is people within a given distance of these cell towers will lose approximately 20% of their home value. But I guess you don’t care that old folks need that home value so they can pay for their extended care or hospital bills. Cell companies are out for major profits and use FCC safety rules from 1996. In fact they are now placing 5G antennas outside people’s windows causing horrid illness across our country and the world. It’s all about gaining more profit by scarfing Internet service from underground cables, and spewing it through your bedroom window into your body. But oh that’s right let’s go back to 1996 and read that it’s not dangerous.
The pain may be coming to your house very soon. I realize you maybe a Verizon customer or employee and just looking at the number of bars on your phone. Compare it to mine. My phone happens to always have four bars but again I’m getting my cell service from one of those towers on the Mesa.
The City of Arroyo Grande has fairly detailed siting codes for telecommunication facilities. The Planning Commision’s denial of the Verizon applications was based on the proposed cell tower site NOT meeting the guidelines of those codes. Sunrise Terrace residents are NOT against cell towers. We just want the tower located in a way that is consistent with the siting requirements that were not followed, especially in light of the fact that a site is available that meets those siting requirements. Yes, Verizon has a plan in motion to submit another application to fill their “supposed but not proved” gap in service. We’ll have to wait to see if they actually submit an application in time for it to be processed by their requested extension to time to November 15, 2024. That’s an extension of almost nine months from the time of the Planning Commission’s rejection. My emails from the deployment company that Verizon contracts with do not make it hopeful that they well meet this deadline.
As it happens, most property on the California coast has doubled in value over the past few years. I don’t know anyone, whether wealthy or less so, who would choose to diminish the value of their property by up to 20%. The statistics regarding loss of value of homes near cell phone towers have been compiled and regularly updated by the Board of Realtors whose major focus is to identify what increases or decreases home values, because of course they are interested in maximizing values for maximum commissions.
I don’t know of anyone who would knowingly risk their health if that could be avoided. The risk to health from cell tower radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) radiation has been scientifically researched and situationally documented many times over since the proliferation of cell towers began across the globe. The data is available from sources such as Environmental Health Trust and Physicians for Safe Technology. Firefighters fought to remove and ban cell towers from fire stations (where they were once routinely located) due to the illness they caused. Cell towers are no longer allowed to be located on school grounds due to the illnesses and brain issues that signal exposure caused to students (again, based on scientific research). Would you willingly choose this level of 24-hour exposure given the proof that it is unhealthful? Of course not! Incidentally, we don’t see these towers going up in the middle of neighborhoods of million-dollar homes, just saying.
Many of us treasure and daily enjoy the views from our home. Could be views of farmlands, hills, or if you’re lucky enough, the ocean. Neighborhoods nearby the proposed location of this massive tower are fighting it because it would certainly interfere with the view from homes there. It doesn’t matter how the tower is “disguised”, it’s still a massive tower either on your horizon or in your bedroom window. Imagine also the increased noise, activity and nighttime lighting that goes along with any tower. It changes the neighborhood, and not for the better.
So, the good news is that there are several potential locations within the same general area where a tower could be located without risk or hazard to residents. Choosing one of those makes more sense than putting it in the middle of a neighborhood, regardless the age or economic standing of residents. We would be foolish to equate the concerns about cell tower issues with responses to any infrastructure development or improvement. It doesn’t translate. We should consider investing in fiber optic cable systems and run the signal underground where it doesn’t pose such negative environmental impacts (positive infrastructure development). Everyone equally deserves the highest quality of life available, so we should be circumspect and use wisdom when making decisions about the placement of cell towers and locate them a safe distance from homes of any type or price.
NT: agree with the seniors but DIABLO CANYON the bigger threat…
But you’ll point a cellphone at your face all day everyday.