By J.K. YAMAMOTO, Rafu Staff Writer

TORRANCE — A group of North Torrance residents held a demonstration on Oct. 7 opposing a proposed cell tower to be erected by telecom giant Crown Castle at 2124 Redondo Beach Blvd.

The protest followed a Sept. 26 Torrance City Council meeting during which Crown Castle’s application for a permit was approved. The next council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 24.

The cell tower would be in the form of an artificial tree in front of 2116 Plaza, which includes Maui Chicken, Happy Braces (dentistry for children), La Belle Nail Bar, The Trend (hair salon), Torrance Postal and Shipping, a medical supply store, a massage establishment and a children’s martial arts studio. The impacted residences are behind the rear parking lot, where a temporary tower on wheels is located. The temporary tower replaced a tower that was destroyed in a fire in 2020.

Residents carried signs with such messages as “No to Cell Tower! We are land protectors,” “Cell tower goes up, property values go down,” and “5G — Ginormous, Grotesque, Groundless, Gratuitous, Greedy.”

Yoshiko Morohoshi, 92, was among the protesters waving at drivers as they passed by. Some honked to show their support.

At their last meeting, the City Council voted 5-1, with Councilmember Aurelio Mattucci absent, to approve the cell tower over the objections of several residents. The dissenting vote was cast by Councilmember Jon Kaji, whose district includes the proposed site.

Kaji said at the time, “I place a lot of credence on the concerns of the residents and the local community, because there are residents who have lived there for many years. Some have been there longer than I’ve been alive.”

The council was considering an appeal of an earlier decision by the Torrance Planning Commission to approve the cell tower by a 5-1 vote. The appeal was filed by North Torrance ACTION (Against Cell Towers in Our Neighborhood) Coalition, which has been challenging the cell tower for the past year, alleging that it will lower property values and adversely affect residents’ health as well as the environment. Long-time residents testified that bees and other wildlife disappeared from the neighborhood after the installation of the previous cell tower.

Crown Castle brought in an expert witness, Jerrold Bushberg, a clinical professor at UC Davis specializing in radiology and radiation oncology, who said that studies did not support the claims of negative health effects.

Long-time resident Grace Mayeda argued that the tower would be too close to businesses that serve children, and that in the event of a major earthquake, the tower would fall onto cars on Redondo Beach Boulevard.

Kaji suggested that Crown Castle consider the Target parking lot across the street as an alternative site, but Crown Castle attorney Michael Shonafelt rejected the idea, saying that it would mean starting the process all over again in the City of Gardena with no guarantee of success.

Councilmember Asam Sheikh made a motion to uphold the appeal and deny the project, which was seconded by Kaji, but the situation changed after the council went into closed session.

Though councilmembers weren’t allowed to say publicly what was discussed, cell tower opponents suspect that the vote was influenced by the possibility of litigation against the city. Crown Castle previously sued the city in 2019 over denial of permits.

“We have cooperatively worked with the City of Torrance for more than two years to arrive at the best solution to replace the previous wireless tower, which was at the same address for 12 years,” Crown Castle External Affairs Manager Scott Longhurst said in a statement.

“The project complies with all city regulations, is supported by city planning staff and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Maintaining strong wireless connectivity is essential for first responders and local economic strength and improves the general way of life. The majority of 911 calls are from wireless devices.”

Alvin Takamori, a local resident and one of the leaders of the anti-cell tower campaign, said during the protest, “This is not a good property for the cell tower … All the businesses (on the site) are all aware of what’s going on.”

A subsequent meeting with Kaji and other councilmembers was delayed because the City Council was visiting Kashiwa, Torrance’s sister city in Japan, but Takamori said filing a motion to reconsider the council’s previous vote was an option.

“It’s definitely in the municipal code of the City of Torrance that these cell towers should be blending into their environment, and this is not going to do that,” he added. “A 70-foot-tall fake tree — there’s nothing like that here. That’s not blending into the environment. It’s going to be clearly visible from all the residences around here … It would be an eyesore.

“The other issue is that once you place something like that, people coming into the neighborhood who see that are less likely to buy property here. Basically, if there’s a cell tower visible from a home, people are discouraged from, wanting to buy that property.”

Regarding the expert testimony, Takamori responded, “That is so bogus. First of all, this contention … that emissions from cell towers are 50 times below the safety limits. But there is no consensus in the scientific community as to what the safety limit is. There’s actually a consortium of international EM (electromagnetic radiation) scientists where they made an appeal to the governments of the world that they need to have higher standards for what they’re allowing these cell towers to emit because there’s plenty of peer-reviewed studies that indicate that there are health issues happening.

“One of the problems is that the FCC set their guidelines back in 1996 — that’s 27 years ago. I believe that their guidelines are based on a false premise, that if the emissions from these cell towers don’t heat up cells like a microwave, then it’s all good. But there have been … hundreds of studies on these low-level emissions that the FCC would consider safe. And in more than half of those studies, there were health problems or damage to cells or DNA or various other issues that indicate that these might not be so safe.”

Residents have also stated that there has been no drop in cell service without the new tower.

Marie Morohoshi, Yoshiko Morohoshi’s daughter, lives in the Bay Area but has attended most of the meetings with city officials. “Since the councilmembers were all about to vote in our favor on Sept. 26, but their votes were interrupted by Mayor (George) Chen, who asked for an unnecessary continuance, which caused the City Council to change their votes after they returned from a closed session, we want them to introduce a motion to reconsider their votes,” she said.

“We got a report from the Planning Department that verifies Crown Castle was not the original applicant of the first tower that caught on fire, but they are being treated with special preference as if this new tower is a replacement. But this new tower is taller, stronger, and a totally new design. Furthermore, it is too powerful to be this close to our homes and small businesses.

“The City of Torrance’s Telecom Facility Ordinance (Article 39, Ordinance 3840) absolutely requires corporations to thoroughly investigate alternative types of antennas if there are other antennas within 1,000 feet. And there are two such antennas; on the east and the west end of Redondo Beach Boulevard. But Crown Castle corporation refuses to investigate other antenna options and they refuse to look for other locations, which the law also requires them to do.”

Morohoshi called on the City Council to introduce a motion to reconsider at its next meeting “to give Crown Castle more time to do the required investigation for alternative antennas and time to look for alternative locations, and time to negotiate with our community.

“Finally, we would remind them that we voted them in office and that we are their constituents, not Crown Castle.”

Tuesday’s meeting opens to the public at 6:30 p.m. The Council Chambers are located at 3031 Torrance Blvd. The meeting can also be viewed CitiCABLE Channel 3 (Spectrum) and Channel 31 (Frontier), streaming on http://TorranceCA.Gov, Facebook @ City of Torrance CA Government, and YouTube channel TorranceCitiCABLE.

Photos by J.K. YAMAMOTO/Rafu Shimpo

Articles for you