Opponents of Verizon’s plan to install a cell antenna at the Little League ballfield on Middlefield Road suffered a second blow in as many days Thursday morning when the Architectural Review Board voted to approve the project.
The board voted 3-1, with Chair Lee Lippert dissenting and Vice Chair Randy Popp recusing himself, to approve Verizon’s application to install three cell antennas on a new 65-foot pole, which would replace an existing 60-foot light pole. The vote came one day after the Historic Resources Board ruled that the 1952 ballpark should not be listed in the city’s historic inventory.
The architectural board’s ruling was far from surprising. At a hearing last month, several members indicated that they will support the project, but requested more information about materials and colors of the new pole and the equipment enclosure. This week, after Verizon returned with more details, the board voted to approve the project over the objections of nearby residents.
As at prior meetings, several speakers argued that the new equipment would be unsightly, unsafe or both. Jason Yotopoulos, who lives across the street from the ballpark and who nominated the field for the Historic Inventory, argued Thursday that since the ballpark’s construction in 1952, the city has approved close to 20 different “use permits” relating to new equipment, lighting and field modifications. At least eight permits were subsequently violated, he said, with the property owner failing to comply with conditions relating to such things as noise and light. The city cannot simply continue to issue new conditional use permits for the site.
“The bottom line is, ad hoc incrementalism with permitting does not work for our city,” Yotopoulos told the board.
Willy Lai, who also opposes the new cell equipment, criticized Verizon for constantly changing the equipment’s design and accused the company of creating a “moving target.”
“The project needs to freeze,” Lai said. “People need to be on the same page.”
The sentiment was far from unanimous. Several residents, including Ken Allen, argued at both meetings that many of their neighbors support the Verizon project, which would boost cell reception in the area. The telecom company has also agreed to the architectural board’s recommendation that the new pole be 18 inches in diameter. Last month, Verizon was considering building a pole that would either be 18 or 24 inches in diameter.
In their comments, the architecture board emphasized its purview over the controversial project is limited to “quality” and “character” of the proposed equipment. Lippert ultimately voted against the project after his colleagues rejected his suggestion that Verizon make the new pole sky blue, to camouflage it against the sky.
Lippert also expressed concern about the potential of other cell equipment being added to the pole in the future and felt there should have been language addressing what is known as “colocation.”
His colleagues, for the most part, focused on the look and feel of the new equipment and decided that Verizon’s latest proposal merits approval.
“We are really concerned with the quality and character, and I believe the applicant has done a very good job at minimizing the impact of this facility on the ballfield and had made a number of modifications in response to our comments and those of others,” board member Clare Malone Prichard said.
Board member Alex Lew also pointed out that the new pole and cell equipment would be 300 feet from the sidewalk and about 385 feet from the nearest apartment.
“We’re talking about a huge distance,” Lew said. “It’s not something that’s in anybody’s backyard.”
police arent looking for white guy sunglasses in car ,police were every single place you went.police parked here, police walking just so theyt can witnessYOU tying your shoes etc. lo and behold, more police cars..but this time it was at train crossing.you know that story, but it was police everywhere but where that guy in car with cellphone driving slowly in palo neighborhood. makes you think police are just spying on the same people they always do.lytton plaza hangers even though car garage with constant burglaries is only block away,cops still there in time to sse you adjust your shoes etc. you saw 14 cops total just at random but not where guy in car with cellphone.they are not looking at motorists just watching you eat you wheaties.
> Willy Lai, who also opposes the new cell equipment, criticized Verizon
> for constantly changing the equipment’s design and accused the company of
> creating a “moving target.”
That’s how technology works. Generally, everything gets smaller, cheaper, and provides higher performance. That’s what makes technology such a good investment.
Got to wonder if anyone will be able to see more than the tip of the antenna when this project is completed?
The new cell phone tower behind Starbucks in the Midtown Shopping Center is a lot closer than 300 feet to the apartment complex next door. Why so much stick about the cell phone tower in the ball field, but I didn’t hear anything about the midtown tower until after it was installed?
@resident – homeowners are bigger NIMBYs than renters.
Good maybe now I’ll have proper 4G Reception!
Now the Little Leaguers can grow extra appendages to enhance their baseball skills. Thank you Verizon.
Honestly nobody is telling us the real story on effects of cell towers near our homes.
Stanford Graduate Students: can you study this and tell us?
Respectfully
It’s important to remember that the ARB’s purview is limited to things like color and aesthetics, not whether a cell tower should be allowed. It is no surprise the project was approved, but I would say any of them were excited about it. One board member approved with a comment similar to (paraphrasing) “It’s as good as it can get.”
I do want to clarify one piece of this article though, because it is extremely important.
“Lippert ultimately voted against the project after his colleagues rejected his suggestion that Verizon make the new pole sky blue, to camouflage it against the sky.”
That is very misleading – yes, the others didn’t agree to the blue color, but his dissension was not because of the color, it was because of the co-location concerns raised at the meeting. Mr. Lippert was the only one who either understood, or cared, that once a cell tower exists at a given address, the Federal government has decreed that the city cannot block expansion or additional carriers from co-locating there. The expansions are only limited to 20 feet wide and 20 feet taller. Yes, that’s FEET.
Residents need to be aware of this aspect before they agree to put the first one in. There are more appropriate places for cell towers and antennas to proliferate – industrial or commercial – than in the middle of an R1 zoned property and parks. We need to look at the future impacts of our actions.
I wish the weekly would cover this critical aspect – it is the biggest and most important piece. I really don’t understand why it is consistently left out of the “news” coverage.
I Was There,
Thanks for bringing up the co-location issue, which was central to Lippert’s opposition (I agree, the color issue was comparatively minor). I added it to the story earlier today.
Thanks again,
Gennady
Gennady,
Thanks you for adding it. I do think this issue deserves more attention though. 1) Most people have already read the article and moved on, so the opportunity was missed. 2) The vast majority of residents have no idea about this 2012 law and what it means. You have an opportunity to do a huge public service by doing a little research and informing the residents about something that will bite them hard down the road. I would provide a link but my post will just be removed.
Finally!! Most of us who live in Adobe Meadow neighborhood have wanted more cell service for years and years. But in true Palo Alto style we have to listen to the few nay-sayers go on and on and on…. I know we’d like ‘rule by consensus, but when there isn’t any consensus, then please listen to the majority!
Don’t get your hopes up. I am sure the crazy neighbors will try to appeal this until people are communicating with telepathy rather than cell phones.
Careful now, PA Mom — there will be those out there who would object to telepathic communication. Dangers from stray thoughts and all, you know…
People fearful of being in a park with a cell phone antenna tower (which will send out radio waves) should realize that the cell phones they’re using right next to their heads or bodies are dosing them with much stronger radio waves. Still, the wattage of cell phone signals is low and I’m not worried about it.
Can someone tell me whether this is going to be something that improves service for all carriers or just Verizon customers. This area of town is bad for other carriers too.
The vast majority of Palo Alto residents are smart enough to understand that the radiation from these cell phone antennas is much weaker than the radiation coming from the cell phone in their pocket or their home WiFi routers. The real reason the NIMBYs are opposed to this antenna is that it is ugly. That is why the new Midtown antenna (behind Starbucks) was installed with no issues, even though it is less than 100 yards from the apartment building next door. You can only see the Midtown antenna from the parking lot, and the parking lot is already ugly enough that the antenna doesn’t make it any more ugly.
I find it amusing that people are commenting about radiation, when that was not the subject of the article or the meeting. People are happy to engage in name-calling but don’t bother to understand the details of the concerns.
Oh, and just a nit, you have a choice whether to use a cell phone or not (and whether to hold it to your head or not). You can turn your cell phone off. A cell tower is on 24×7 and the neighbors have no choice.
We wonder why we have bullying in elementary school. Well, it’s starts at home with the adults.
We are on AT&T phone service. Oftentimes when my kids call from their iPhones, the reception is so bad that we have to resort to texting! Someone said Verizon has better reception for iPhones. Is this correct, Silicon Valley? Thanks for any feedback.
@Digression: AT&T cell service is generally bad, whether it involves iPhones or another platform. While Verizon is one option for better service, any other carrier is a better bet than AT&T.
Now comes the inevitable lawsuit, as the headline in the Daily Post informs. A couple of sand-in-the-gear groups are suing to stop the project, claiming that it contributes to autism. Couldn’t make the case about vaccines, so why not pick on electromagnetic waves?
Palo Alto Little League deserves much better than this. I wonder if it (or Verizon) can counter-sue for court costs and damages?
The autism alarmist group has succeeded in getting an injunction against Verizon at the Little League park. The project was already well under way. I hope that Verizon brings in its heavy hitter lawyers to counter-sue this group, big time.
It is time that we, in Palo Alto, reject these rejectionists. First it was vaccines, where many naïve parents refused to vaccinate their children, thus increasing previously eradicated diseases; now it is a move to shut down all cell towers, with the Little League as a test case.
Which Day’s Daily Post has the headline (and presumably, article)? It doesn’t seem to be today’s.
I think it’s short-sighted of the Little League board to turn their park into a commercial site with extensive equipment and generators and Verizon access easements. Little League has flourished in this town and at this park for 60 years without needing to go commercial, and today’s residents are wealthier and have more means than ever before to support a clean Little League experience.
The Palo Alto Little League field belongs to all of Palo Alto, not just the few board members that are making decisions right now, today. As the current stewards of the Ballpark, the board members should be keeping the Little League Park dedicated to the kids for playing the game of baseball.
Putting a cell tower and the large accessory buildings and generators in the middle of it is a disgrace. Palo Alto Little League parents, and the continuing benefactors, have more than enough means to keep this beautiful park in great shape without sticking a tacky cell tower in the middle of it.
Hey “Julianne,” you seem to know much more than is published. Are you part of Verizon or the Palo Alto Little League? That would explain your inside info and unrelated rhetoric here.
What do vaccines have to do with this issue? Oh yeah, it’s the latest point of outrage that will get people upset, so you’re using a completely unrelated issue to bolster your public image and distract from the relevant situation.
Hopefully, adults in Palo Alto are smart enough to ignore the name-calling and subterfuge, and learn about the actual issues themselves, even though it seems PAO is not covering this controversy.
“Hey “Julianne,” you seem to know much more than is published. Are you part of Verizon or the Palo Alto Little League? That would explain your inside info and unrelated rhetoric here.”
My two sons played LL baseball years ago. I often walk through the Middlefield LL Park, on my way to Mitchell Park. When I see something odd going on, I tend to ask questions. I saw the cell tower project being shut down, so I asked a couple of people why. I have no role with LL or Verizon. I just support our LL against unfair attacks, like your own or the activist groups who spout nonsense about such things as autism and cell towers. My hope is that Verizon will send in their top lawyers to counter-sue.
And yes, I hope that PAO and the Daily Post will investigate.
>> I just support our LL against unfair attacks…
How is the LL being attacked? Those kind of statements only serve to mislead readers. The LL is being attacked in any way, shape, or form. Stop trying to make this about kids, instead of commercial business.
It’s funny, when the cell tower proposal at St. Albert’s church was protested and defeated, I don’t recall people claiming that Catholics or the Catholic Church were being attacked. I don’t recall any claims that the neighbors were trying to shut down the church.
“…spout nonsense about such things as autism and cell towers.”
Of course it’s nonsense, because you say it is. How much time have you spent looking into the link? And cigarettes don’t cause health problems, either.
The Little League gets some much needed funds each month, and the local region gets better cell phone service. It is a win-win. The attempt to use autism as a foil to block that which has already been approved is so sad. I hope those who are attempting this play get the legal pushback they deserve.
>> The Little League gets some much needed funds…
The LL is having no trouble getting funds the same way it has for the past 60 years. No sooner is this cell tower approved for the poor starving LL, when they announce a capital program and how they’re going to spend all the money.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/03/20/community-notebook-little-league-gets-gift-plans-capital-campaign
Quite disingenuous to claim the LL is being attacked.
And again, please tell us what you know about autism and cell towers that justify your claim of “nonsense.”
Today’s Daily Post had a front page article about the issue. This project has already been approved by the City, but a legal injunction was sought by the same groups who opposed in the past (and who didn’t get their way). The project is currently blocked. The city council is supposed to review the issue tonight (behind closed doors).
It would be good to see the PAW investigate the case. Importantly, it would good to do areal investigation that reveals the names of the people behind this injunction.