> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Residents lose battle against wireless tower - URL: https://www.smdp.com/residents-lose-battle-against-wireless-tower/ - Published: 2005-03-24T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T06:23:16.000Z - Author: Ryan Hyatt - Tags: Community, Santa Monica, #archive-import *City: Health concerns don’t warrant denial* CITY HALL — An attempt by Santa Monica residents to block the placement of a wireless transmission tower on Wilshire Boulevard was denied by the City Council on Tuesday, the latest setback for citizens opposed to a proposal originally submitted in 2003\. The City Council approved AT&T’s application to place a wireless communication tower on top of a private commercial building at 3010 Wilshire Blvd., affirming a city staff report indicating the proposed project met Federal Communication Commission standards and, therefore, the city had no legal grounds to deny its approval. AT&T representatives said they want to install the tower to satisfy future demands of a cellular phone market that continues to grow in the area. The application for the tower was submitted in September of 2003\. AT&T proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility on the roof of an existing five-story private building which will consist of a Global Positioning System antenna, a flat panel antenna, and three sectors of two antennas on the roof. The associated mechanical equipment will be located within the building on the fifth floor. The city zoning administrator approved the proposal in October of 2003\. It was then appealed by residents within the same month. The proposal went through a public hearing process and was brought before the Planning Commission in March 2004\. The Planning Commission denied the appeal, at which point members of the public appealed the denial. A public hearing was finally held in late 2004 in which AT&T, a consultant and critics of the proposal came forward to hash out the issue before the City Council, but that hearing was postponed until Tuesday so that mathematical discrepancies regarding site specifications could be verified by another consultant. About 40 people showed up on Tuesday at City Hall to speak in opposition to the tower, which they said would have adverse health and economic impacts. “The safety of radio radiation has not been proven, and it may cause brain tumors, brain damage and DNA breakdown,” Santa Monica resident Matt Baird told the council. “Property owners do not have to prove that microwave radiation from antennas lower property values or are dangerous. “The general fear in the marketplace is substantial enough to allow citizens to seek monetary damages,” he said. AT&T Spokesperson Art Navarro would not disclose the specifications for the proposed tower due to confidentiality and proprietary reasons he said may compromise their competitive edge. However, it was said at the Tuesday meeting the tower is expected to have a 3,000-watt energy output, aimed mostly east and west along Wilshire Boulevard. City Attorney Marsha Moutrie explained to the City Council that in her legal opinion, public concern over health and economic impacts alone did not justify a denial of the tower proposal, because federal law does not authorize a denial for health and safety reasons within the scope of the project. “Legally, we’re only allowed to ensure the project will comply with federal standards,” Moutrie said. The proposed site met the federal guidelines, according to a consultant hired by the city. Among the requirements, the site cannot be within 300 feet of a tower with similar energy capacity, which it is not, according to the staff report. Siding with the city legal opinion, Mayor Pam O’Connor and Councilmen Richard Bloom, Ken Genser, Robert Holbrook and Bobby Shriver rebuffed the citizen-organized opposition by approving the towers. Holbrook, who said he had some understanding of radiation output, said he would be more afraid of radiation emitting from his microwave than he would from the proposed tower. Holbrook said he knew of a home close to a tower that sold for $3 million. “It’s a big lot, but still, the house sold (at a high value),” he said. Councilmen Kevin McKeown and Herb Katz abstained from the vote. “I abstain as a protest against the feds for sending concerned citizens to us for relief, but then tell us we can do nothing,” said McKeown. “I refuse to be an apologist for big business and the Bush FCC.” McKeown said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the city cannot be made to pay a penalty for denying antenna applications. According to Navarro, AT&T was happy to hear the views of the public at the meeting, but wanted to emphasize that health issues related to the wireless towers have not been proven and that opinion as to economic impacts varies among people who say they live close to wireless towers. Santa Monica residential real estate broker Rob Schultz said he would disclose any knowledge he had of nearby towers to potential clients. “The name of this game is if you know it, disclose it,” Schultz said. “One of 10 people might say it is too close to the tower, but people understand that if something is allowed to be put in, then there must be an effect that would not hurt people, otherwise it would not be allowed.” Residential real estate broker Valerie Jean Hiss said she knows very little about cell towers and has never disclosed their whereabouts to clients because she has never known about them in residential areas. However, she said it would be against her grain to not disclose them if she did. “If I did know something about the towers, I would be the first person to disclose it,” Hiss said. “The world is so litigious these days you can’t afford to not say something. But I don’t know where they are, and no one has ever told me where they are. “Do we even know what the health ramifications of towers are?” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 24, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/032405.pdf?ref=smdp.com)