Red Huber, OS

TEXT OF LETTER READ TO THE SLC PLANNING COMMISSION:

28 January 2015

Delivered Via Electronic Mail
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State St. Rm 306
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

                           Re: Environmental Assessment

Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission,

I come before you this evening, representing the good people of District 2 of the Salt Lake City School District.

In a prior communication, I addressed the fact that the public process for this Conditional Use application was flawed in that it bypassed the Glendale Community Council, Glendale Middle School Community Council and the Salt Lake City Board of Education.

The excuse that the Glendale Community Council did not meet in December is a poor reason for the absence of notification, as they did meet in the proceeding months and in January prior to this Planning Commission meeting.  

Tonight, I would like to acknowledge the fact that I recognize that 47 U.S.C. 332 has eviscerated your ability to weigh the health risks this cell tower will pose to the students and surrounding residents at Glendale Middle school.

Federal Law States: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.

Therein lies the rub: this WARNING SIGN is displayed on the Cell Tower at Uintah Elementary and it clearly states that the “Radio Frequency Fields at this site exceed the FCC Rules for Human Exposure”. 

In order to receive approval of the Conditional Use application, they tell you they will meet FCC guidelines on radiation emissions and then turn around and post signage stating they have now exceeded the limits set forth by the FCC. What is wrong with this picture?

While in this setting, federal law may indeed prohibit me from protecting the children of my community, it does not however, prevent me from invoking the established safeguards on behalf of the wild life in my neighborhood.

Title 47-Chapter 1 –Subchapter A-Subpart I –Section 1.1307 states:

“The filing of an Environmental Assessment is required… if the facilities may affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats; …..”

The Glendale Middle School is two blocks from the Jordan River which serves as a habitat for the Peregrine Falcon and the Bald Eagle which are currently on the endangered species list.

I am to understand that no Environmental Assessment has been conducted. I would respectfully ask that we implement all aspects of federal law as they pertain to the installation of Cell Towers in my habitat.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára

Board Member, District 2

Enclosure

 P.S. During the 2014 legislative session, House Bill 250 was passed which added the following language to the powers and responsibilities to the office of a local school board member: Notwithstanding a local school board’s status as a body corporate, an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.

cc: Ms. Melissa Burns – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

PDF Version of Letter

Parents and one member of the Salt Lake City School District are crying foul over a proposal to install a cellphone antenna on the roof of Glendale Middle School.

Board member Michael Clara said he’s worried the proposal has advanced too far without a public hearing or approval by the district school board, the school’s community council and the Glendale Community Council.

If built, the 8­foot­tall rooftop antenna would be the 14th cellular tower on school property in the Salt Lake City School District. The antennas generate thousands of dollars in revenue for Utah schools, but some worry that the radiation emitted by cellular technology poses a health risk for children.

On Monday, members of the advocacy group WirelessPollution.org said they plan to take legal action against seven Wasatch Front school districts if school leaders fail to provide scientific proof that cellphone towers are harmless. “They’re just putting these towers right on top of students,” said WirelessPollution.org senior associate David Green. “The burden of proof should be on them. They’re the ones endangering children.” Salt Lake City School District receives more than $180,000 each year from lease agreements with cellular service providers, according to district spokesman Jason Olsen. That revenue translates into roughly $4,000 per year for each school in the district, as well as an additional $3,000 for the schools where cell towers are located

Glendale Middle School Principal Chris Gesteland said he was still researching the details of Verizon Wireless’ proposal. But he added that the potential for new revenue would not outweigh a threat to students. “Any time revenue comes in, it’s appealing,” Gesteland said. “But you certainly wouldn’t want to take revenue over kids’ safety.”

Craig Dietrich, an environmental toxicologist with the Utah Department of Health, said the consensus of the scientific community is that cell towers operate at too low a power level to produce health hazards. He said there are dangers associated with the type of radiation used in cellular technology. But those negative effects are more likely to be the result of continual cellphone use throughout the day. “It’s your own cellphones and the way people are using them now,” Dietrich said. “The amount of energy that you’ll receive from your mobile phone can be up to 1,000 times higher than what you would get being exposed to a base station.”

In 2008, the Utah Department of Health conducted a study and found no relationship between cases of cancer and cell towers. And Dietrich said he has not seen any scientific literature connecting the antennas to disorders such as autism or ADHD. He said the concerns surrounding cellular technology are likely rooted in a general distrust of radiation. And he suggested that some of the objections to antenna towers could be based on aesthetics and not health. “It’s not the most appealing thing to look out and see cellphone towers,” Dietrich said. But Green challenged the idea that the scientific community has reached a consensus. He referred to a recent study in Europe, but acknowledged that the study was focused on cellphone use and not cellular towers. “There’s still lots of questions that are unanswered,” he said. “There’s enough research now that really questions their safety.”

Most of the school districts identified by WirelessPollution.org were not aware of any potential lawsuits from the organization. Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley did not have exact figures, but said the district hosted several cellphone towers that bring in more than $100,000 total each year. “It’s a good source of revenue for a school,” he said. In Jordan School District, a property lease for a tower is roughly $18,000 per year, spokeswoman Sandra Riesgraf said, with all of those funds remaining at the leasingschool. “In our district, we never put one on a school property without taking it to a school.

PDF Version of Story

Link to Original Story