Here is the most recent of an ongoing argument in L.A. that I have
been monitoring. Mr. Landini is the L.A. (Los Angeles) city "bureaucrat"
who deals with complaints. Every major city has one, you know.
The
guy who "appears" to be taking the complaints of the citizens into
consideration ... but really isn't. He is the "shield" to protect
the "higher
ups" from having to deal with such mundane matters as a truly
representative democracy requires........guru.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sprint at Ventura &Carpenter
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:56:58 -0800
From: "Al Landini" <Alandini@Planning.Lacity.Org>
To: <Dvt1059@aol.com>
Dear Debra Van Tongeren
The items below look like a good outline for your presentation at the
Area Planning Commission. You may want to have extra copies of the outline
to hand to the Commissioners. I would suggest you also give a copy
of your outline to the applicant as well. A city attorney will be
present, all legal questions will be directed to him or her. As I
have stated many times, my presentation will focus on design considerations
of the project, I will advise that health issues cannot be considered in
the decision if the site is licensed by the PUC and the FCC ¯ you
will challenge that I assume, and that challenge will be directed to the
city attorney for response. Be prepared for a long wait at the hearing,
the time is very uncertain as to when our item will come up. Sometimes
it is right away, sometimes it is hours. I have no control over that
whatsoever.
Regards
Albert Landini
>>> <Dvt1059@aol.com> 02/21 5:36 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Landini.
"For The record" here are some other concerns
1. This Area of Studio City has enough Telecommunication Towers to serve
its
residents. The applicant has not proved a need for more Antenna.
2. This is a heavily populated residential Area as well as a Commercial
Area.
A residential building is TEN FEET from this installation.
3. The World Heath Organization and the California Public Utilities
Commission Recommends these antenna Not be placed near HOSPITALS, RESIDENTS
OR Schools.
4. This building and the applicant may not have adequate liability
insurance
for PROTRUDING APPLIANCES OFF THE BUILDING AND OR THE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL
EFFECTS OF SUCH DEVICES. This is something the City of Los Angeles
should
and can require.
5. The Applicant has not provided the City of Los Angeles or
the neighboring
residents with Adequate RF readings from ALL sources at and around
this the
site This is recommended FOR CO- LOCATIONS by the FCC" Local
Officials Guide
to RF" to insure RF radiation from this site does not exceed
current"
Acceptable levels" The FCC leaves this up to local Governments to monitor.
In
Italy where everyone has a cel phone RF radiation limits are tens times
less
than the standard for the USA and it is very common to see a RF monitors
warning of RF LEVELS .
6. CO / Locations Have their own Special Safety Issues
and Concerns. And
even though Local Governments may embrace co- Locations many Scientist
on
both side of the fence DO NOT RECOMMEND co- location and advise Special
precautions when designing co-locations when multiple antenna owned
by
different companies are on the same structure. This applies particularly
to
sites that include high-powered (fm/TV) antennas. CBS is right across
the
street! Local Zoning may favor Co-location but Co-location can
provide
"challenging" RF safety problems. Do you really want these challenging
s
afety problems close to a school?
7. The addition of Cellular Antennas may have negative impact
on the
surrounding neighborhoods Property values. As more people become
aware of
the controversy surrounding these types of installation, Property Value
will
be effected. I will always check on the location of Cell antennas before
buying a new home.
8. These antenna run 24 hours a day seven days a week Studies are showing
Sleep Pattern Disruption near Cellular antennas and should have Hour
of
operation AND ZONING RESTRICTION AS IT WOULD ANY OTHER NUISANCE
9. The 1996 Telecommunication Act does not deny the allegations
of harmful
effects from RF Radiation only prohibits local Governments from "blanket
prohibitions and general bans or policies but not individual zoning
decisions.
The Courts have up held local Authority's right to restrict the
placement of
cellular antenna because of "Community Concerns" AT&T
V. City Council of
Virginia Beach United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
Regards,
Debra Van Tongeren
--