A group of Hockinson-area residents is continuing their legal fight against a proposed cell tower, arguing the project is unnecessary, would alter the character of the neighborhood and has not adequately considered alternatives that could provide cellular coverage without constructing a new tower.
Tom Erkert, Dale Good and Mark Roeter are among the residents opposing the proposed tower. The group has challenged the project through the county’s land-use process and has appealed the decision to Superior Court.
The residents said they are not opposed to improved cellular service but believe the proposed tower is the wrong solution for the area.
“We're not against having better service or having more options,” Erkert said. “What we are against is doing something that's completely unnecessary that can have serious health side effects.”
The proposed 165-foot tower by Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile would be located on a leased portion of a 10-acre property just north of the intersection of Northeast 189th Street and Northeast 207th Ave. in the North Hockinson area. Residents said the site is surrounded by established neighborhoods and expressed concerns about the tower’s visual impact, potential noise and effects on nearby property values, as well as health concerns backed by studies and prior legal battles in other states.
The group distributed a mailer to properties within about 500 meters of the proposed tower, citing concerns about potential long-term health effects and property values.
Residents said they found information indicating the presence of a tower could affect property values, though the figures they cited have not been independently verified. According to the group, a study reviewed by a local real estate professional estimated property-value reductions of 10% to 19% among 19 properties, with the homes averaging about $900,000. The residents also gathered more than 60 signatures opposing the project.
“We moved here for a reason,” Erkert said. “And (the cell tower is) not it.”
A neighbor who recently moved to the area said he would not have purchased his home had he known about the proposed tower. The group is considering what the project could mean for residents if it is ultimately approved.
“We wouldn't have bought this house if we'd known about it at the time. We're considering what we're going to do if it does pass. Are we going to stay or not?” he said.
Residents question need for another tower
A central part of the residents’ argument is that Hockinson already has cellular infrastructure that they believe could be used to address at least part of the coverage issue identified by the applicant.
The residents said there are already two towers in Hockinson and another in Battle Ground used for east county service. One existing Hockinson tower is near Hockinson Market and the school, while another is located in the Old Apostolic Lutheran Church parking lot off of Northeast 164th Street. The latter is a 150-foot tower managed by American Tower and carries Verizon equipment, according to the residents.
The proposed tower would be built by Vertical Bridge for T-Mobile, according to the group.
Residents said the applicant — Vertical Bridge — has identified an area extending toward Risto Road to the north, and south of 189th Street as having inadequate coverage. They argue the existing cell tower managed by American Tower can cover the area south of Northeast 189th Street with additional antennas placed on the existing tower.
The residents also proposed using smaller antennas mounted on utility poles in the Risto Road area. They said those so-called small-cell installations could address localized coverage gaps without requiring another large tower.
“The small cells will be like if you had a speaker system. You have one big speaker blasting out, or you distribute a bunch of small ones instead,” Erkert said. “So each one of the antennas here associated with a small cell would have much less radio footprint. So much less power.” The residents said their alternatives are intended to demonstrate that other approaches should be evaluated rather than automatically approving construction of another large tower. Their argument centers in part on Clark County code provisions addressing the use of existing infrastructure and co-location.
“And all we were asking is, review this alternative, analyze this alternative, and see if it will work,” Erkert said.
The group said an existing tower has space available for additional equipment and that American Tower has indicated it is available for lease.
Residents argue that the availability of existing infrastructure should have been more thoroughly considered during the county review.
Visual and neighborhood concerns
Beyond cellular coverage, residents said the proposed structure would substantially change the appearance of the surrounding area.
The group estimates the 165-foot tower would be comparable in height to a 15-story building. They said the structure would be particularly noticeable because of the surrounding terrain and residential development.
Roeter described the proposal in stark terms.
“And so, to me, it's Godzilla invading my neighborhood,” he said.
Residents also raised concerns about potential noise from equipment associated with the tower, including cooling systems and a backup generator.
They said residents could be left with the responsibility of documenting noise problems after construction and going through the county’s enforcement process if the facility exceeds applicable sound limits.
Health concerns were also discussed during the interview. Residents said they believe research regarding radio-frequency exposure warrants greater consideration, while acknowledging that federal law limits local governments’ ability to regulate wireless facilities based on health effects when facilities comply with applicable federal standards.
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 blocks state and local governments from denying cell tower or wireless facility permits based on the environmental or health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, provided the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines.
In 2021, the Environmental Health Trust won in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit after the court of appeals ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the FCC to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious,” according to EHT.
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”
The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:
Those same concerns were presented by the residents in the vicinity of the proposed cell tower.
Legal challenge continues
After the county hearing examiner ruled in favor of Vertical Bridge, the residents appealed the decision through a Land Use Petition Act, or LUPA, case in Superior Court in May of this year. The residents said they filed their brief in September and were awaiting the applicant’s response. They expected another round of briefing before a court hearing, which they anticipated would take place later in the fall.
The proposed tower is on hold while the litigation proceeds, according to the residents. The legal fight has also come at a significant financial cost. The group said it has spent more than $22,000 on related legal representation and court costs and expects additional expenses as the case moves forward.
“We've spent most of the funds that we've collected, so we're asking for anybody's help at this point,” Erkert said.
The residents said their opposition is about more than the individual tower and reflects concerns about how cellular infrastructure will be planned as demand for wireless service continues to grow.
They argued that future tower placement should be approached strategically, with greater consideration given to existing infrastructure, alternative technologies and the effects on established neighborhoods.
“There needs to be a very strategic, well thought out plan on how you're going to place these things to minimize these effects. And they're not doing it,” Erkert said.
The group said Clark County’s ongoing comprehensive planning work could provide an opportunity to address how future wireless facilities are sited.
Residents say they will continue challenging the project while also seeking financial support for their legal effort.
To learn more, and to support the residents’ funding of legal fees, visit gofundme.com/f/protect-our-community-stop-the-cell-tower.
