City still lacks policy on cell towers City still lacks policy on cell towers (May 04, 2005)

Proposed poles in south Palo Alto re-open old issue

by Jocelyn Dong

When Pacific Bell sought to install a cell-phone tower in a south Palo Alto church parking lot, alarmed community members asked the city to create a policy to keep the gargantuan poles from sprouting like unsightly weeds around town.

Although the pole was denied, eight years later the city still does not have a telecommunications policy. To the chagrin of some of the church's neighbors, another cell tower is being proposed for the same location south of Arastradero Road along Foothill Expressway.

As part of the plan, the pole may be disguised as a pine tree.

In the last decade, 140,000 cell towers have been erected in the country, according to one industry estimate. Palo Alto hosts 16, and the City Council approved another one Monday -- disguised as a broadleaf tree -- for the Blockbuster Video parking lot on El Camino Real.

At the council meeting, Councilmember Yoriko Kishimoto revived the issue of a telecommunications policy, which would guide the city in determining where and when installing towers would be appropriate.

A policy, Kishimoto said in a later phone interview, would addresses such issues as whether the city could require cell-towers to be shared by providers, rather than each putting up a tower for its own use.

"If there are 10 cell-phone providers, are we obligated to provide 10 different poles?" she asked.

According to Bill Belt, director of wireless issues for the Telecommunications Industry Association in Arlington, Va., having one pole used by multiple companies is a common practice nationwide.

"It happens all the time; it happens more than not," Belt said, noting that as many as six phone companies have been known to share the same tower. The practice lowers construction costs for each provider.

However, he said, legally requiring companies to share can pose some problems. Different providers require different pole and antenna designs, due to the radio-frequency range they operate within, for example.

As much as the city may need a policy, Emily Harrison, Palo Alto's assistant city manager, said one will not be developed in the near future, as it will take a great deal of work and does not rank high in the staff's long list of priorities. A zoning-ordinance update, expected this fall, would address some of the aesthetic and location issues, though.

Policy or no policy, some residents of the Esther Clark Park and Greater Miranda neighborhoods are none too pleased with the proposed pole. Earlier this month they met with representatives from VelociTel, the company that is hoping to build it.

"The application should be turned down," said Phil Green, who would have a view of the 45-foot tower from his street, located across Foothill from the proposed tower. The same reasons for denying a similar project in 1997 still apply today, he said.

The pole would be "detrimental and injurious because the monopole would be visible from adjacent residential sites and Foothill Expressway," he said, citing the city report for the previous plan.

"It is important that we make every effort to contain this blight," Green said.

VelociTel reportedly considered two other sites for the pole, including on top of a power line in Greater Miranda and in Alta Mesa Cemetery. Both, Green said, are "objectionable."

Another possible location, however, might be at the V.A. Hospital, further north along Foothill. The location was mentioned at the meeting with VelociTel, and according to Green, the company representative said that possibility had not been considered yet.

The idea of disguising the pole and its six panel antennae as a pine tree was raised at the meeting, and a VelociTel representative handed residents a picture of a fake tree the company installed elsewhere. But it did not make the idea any more palatable to the residents.

"It raises issues about maintenance, not only of the equipment but of the tree," Green said. Other residents worry over the radiation the antennae emit.

A representative for VelociTel did not return a call for comment.

Greater Miranda neighbors openly wonder about the appropriateness of locating a cell-phone pole in a residential area. They are not alone; throughout the country, the issue is sparking similar debates. And the rejection of proposed towers has led, in turn, to hundreds of lawsuits by phone companies against cities, according to a recent New York Times article.

Although a Palo Alto telecommunications policy doesn't appear to be forthcoming, the city will address some cell-phone tower issues later this year, said John Lusardi, a planning manager for the city. The zoning-ordinance update will regulate the type of permission given a company to operate a cell tower, in relation to where the tower is located. The city could, for example, make the permit conditional and subject to periodic renewal for a residential area, but permanent for a commercial area, Lusardi said.

Visual elements -- such as the aesthetics of a 40-plus-foot pole -- could also be regulated through ordinance. The update may also distinguish cell towers from other utilities. Right now, they are all grouped together and subject to similar regulations, Lusardi said.

The zoning update, however, may not address the issue of providers sharing cell towers. The city might be able to require a tower to be built with the ability to serve multiple carriers' needs, Lusardi said, but it's an open question as to whether the city can require private companies to share.

The proposed cell-phone tower in south Palo Alto will be reviewed by the planning department at a later date, according to city staff member Clare Campbell. The public will be notified by mail of the decision, and then have the opportunity to appeal.

Senior Staff Writer Jocelyn Dong can be reached at jdong@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.