pdf | print

Cell Tower

Dennis Connors, an eight year resident and father of a three year old son,  says that he would have put his house up for sale had he known that the T-Mobile Corporation had applied for a permit to erect six cell phone antennas on the roof of an apartment house on his residential street. “I am outraged” says Connor, an architect, as he discusses the lack of community notification, the bypassing of a required historic district review, and the potential impact on the health and safety of his family and the surrounding community.

On October 3, T-Mobile began to install six 10-foot cell phone antennas on the roof of the Polk Court Apartments at 525 G St SE. Neighbors were surprised at the lack of any notification. The usual procedure for work of this scope is the issuance of a building permit from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs as well as a sign off from the Office of Planning’s Historic Preservation Office which reviews plans and drawings to make certain that they are in compliance with the historic district requirements. HPO is responsible for “the stewardship of ……the District’s historical and cultural resources.”

Health Concerns
Regina Reilly, Connors’ wife, though troubled by the lack of regular process, is even more concerned with the health and safety implications of this surprise installation. Reilly and neighbors are distressed about the possible impact of the radio frequency waves on the children who live adjacent to or nearby the antenna installation. Connors counts eight children on their block facing the cell antennas with more than a dozen children in streets the apartment house abuts: “The most vulnerable people to the effects of radiation are children. They are not fully formed.”

The American Cancer Society’s web site ( www.cancer.org ) on the other hand minimizes the notion that antenna radio waves are dangerous, describing cell antennas’ emissions as “non- ionizing radiation radio waves” which “unlike gamma rays have too little energy to break the bonds that hold DNA or cells together.” ACS’ site concludes: “For these reasons cell phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer”

However, the web site does go on to refer to a “US Air Force study that suggested an increase in brain tumors in association with radiofrequency/microwave exposure.”

Ann Loikowa, a Cleveland Park resident who helped lead the successful fight against the American Tower on Wisconsin Avenue in early 2000 when the community pressured the District to reverse its approval as well as having the tower taken down, warns there is a plethora of evidence that there are genuine safety issues produced by what Loikowa refers to as the “ electromagnetic soup” that is produced by these radiation waves.

Historic Districts and Permitting Process
Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director for the Development and Review for the DC Office of Planning, stated that under Chapter 27 of the DC Zoning Regulations cell antennas are “allowed as a matter of right in all zones in DC.” She added that the application for the cell antennas moved forward despite being in a historic district because the apartment building is not covered under the regulations as it is  a “ non contributing building,” which means that as a new construction it is not part of the historic fabric that is protected. She said that Section 106 of the Federal Communications Commission regulations which prescribe these installations do not allow any “preemption from local jurisdictions.” Steingasser does concede that HPO review was inadvertently omitted in the permitting process. However, she contends that T-Mobile has been responsive and has moved the antennas back six feet from the roof line although they are still visible from the street which is incompatible with historic district regulations.

Lack of formal revue notwithstanding, in September 2008 David Maloney, the State Historic Preservation Officer, curiously gave his approval six months in advance of T-Mobile’s permit application from DCRA as an attachment in response to an Advantage Environmental Consultants request on behalf of T-Mobile for a Section 106 review, writing, “I concur with AEC’s findings that there is no adverse effect to historic properties to this proposed undertaking and no further evaluation regarding historic properties is necessary.” T-Mobile applied for a permit at DCRA on March 19, 2009 and it was approved on April 28.

Maloney recently reported that the “paperwork for the permit should have come to our office” conceding it did not. Maloney insists that although the installation is virtually completed, HPO is now conducting the required review and that HPO’s work “is still not finished.”  An attempt to reach DCRA for a comment was unsuccessful.

Jason Campbell, Senior Development Manager for T-Moblie, stated that among the reasons for the installation of so many cell towers in the District is the high frequency of dropped 911 calls. Asked why these particular antennas had to be installed in a residential neighborhood and not within the commercial strips of Capitol Hill,  Campbell responded that there are already antennas installed on Pennsylvania Ave and other commercial sites among the more than 200 T-Mobile installation sites in the District. As far as microwatt emission standards of safety, Campbell stated that “1000 per centimeter squared” is the norm for this type of facility. RF emissions from a typical cell site are .0001% of what the FCC allows.“ Campbell did not provide what emission levels are considered unsafe.

Terry Mc Donald, property manage of Scallon Properties which manages Polk Court Apartments, responded to a question on the impact of the health and safety of the residential community, saying: “ That’s a question you will have to ask T-Mobile.” McDonald declined to reveal the revenue his company was receiving for its roof cell rentals. McDonald continued: “They approached us looking for area with low cell service. Our opinion was if it is legal we can have the deal, as long as it is by the book.”