H-board rejects St. John’s College’s cell tower plan

Neighbors raise objections to site, raising height to 75 feet

A proposal to install a 75-foot telecommunications tower on the campus of St. John’s College that would’ve been camouflaged to look like a tree got the ax Tuesday night.

The city’s Historic Districts Review Board voted 5-0 to deny the college’s request for a waiver to exceed the maximum allowable height of 16 feet to make way for an AT&T “monopine” telecommunications tower on the campus off Camino de Cruz Blanca.

St. John’s request sparked opposition from neighbors, who were concerned about the visibility and aesthetics of a piece of technology that has been called “notoriously unattractive.”

“The really important player isn’t here — St. John’s,” said Frank Katz, the board’s vice chairman, before the vote.

“They say, ‘Oh, we don’t want to put it by the west dormitories because it’s ugly, and we don’t want it to put it by the east dormitories because it’s ugly,’ ” he said.

“I mean, they’re perfectly happy to put it right in front of the neighbors across the street,” Katz added.

The college maintained public safety was the heart of the issue.

Wireless reception in and around the college campus is shoddy, according to St. John’s, which expressed concerns about the ability to get through to 911 dispatchers in an emergency, particularly the presence of an active shooter.

“Currently, wireless users [in the area] are experiencing slower speeds, difficulty accessing the E911 services, high capacity internet resources and general poor call quality, which is even more prevalent as the demand grows in the city of Santa Fe for wireless service,” the college wrote in its application.

A handful of residents spoke during a virtual public hearing.

Only one spoke in favor of the tower, saying the area lacks adequate cellular coverage.

“I only care about the capability myself,” said Joe Ferguson, who lives in the 2200 block of Wilderness Arroyo. “But I know the community here will care about the aesthetic decision that is before you.”

Opponents said they aren’t against wireless technology but criticized the size and design of the proposed tower.

Rresident John Eddy said he thought the college was “foisting the aesthetic

impact of these towers, whatever we come up with, on the rest of the neighborhood.”

Eddy also worried about the precedent, saying approval could “open the door to more of these 80-foot towers in different neighborhoods.”

The board first considered the request for a 75-foot tower June 23.

After discussing the merits of the project, board members postponed a decision and requested additional information on alternative locations “and to better demonstrate that the proposal represents the least obtrusive option to close the gap in cell coverage for the area,” said Lisa Roach, the city’s Historic Preservation Division manager.

On July 14, Corrales-based Gravity Pad Partners LLC, which represents the college, provided information to the board, which put off a decision again.

Though the delay failed to produce an agreement with area residents, Gravity Pad Partners appeared before the board again Tuesday with three alternative sites and design options for the board to consider.

They included a “bell tower” design located farther south from Camino de Cruz Blanca, a Territorial Revival-style “watch tower” even farther south and a “monopine” in an undeveloped area.

All of the proposals called for a tower either 75 or 80 feet tall.

“Obviously, the biggest obstacle I would say in looking at this project and judging this project is obviously the height. It is extremely high,” Chairwoman Cecilia Rios said.

Roach said each design would be publicly visible.

It’s “notoriously difficult” to apply historic district standards to a telecommunications facility, she added.

Sean Milks of Gravity Pad Partners told the board cell towers are difficult to shield from public view.

“Unfortunately, the sites have to be above any trees that would block them,” he said. “Although we would love to make it invisible, it’s just not simply the case. It is just part of our everyday life.”

Neighbors disputed the notion that real alternatives were presented to the board.

They scheduled a “walk-around” July 27 — a Monday — with one of the partners of Gravity Pad to get a firsthand look at potential locations and design changes. The Friday before the meeting, they said, the company told them only three alternative sites would be considered.

In a July 31 email to the board, neighbors asserted that two of the three sites already had been presented in Gravity Pad’s initial submission.

“All were located on essentially the same two acres of the St. John’s campus when St. John’s has 250 acres to choose from,” states the email, signed by Robert Snow, Stephen Durkovich, Steve Flance, Hannah McCaughey, Phillip Stern, James Polk and Darryl Coleman.

They noted each option maintained the proposed height of 75 feet — apparently a deal-breaker.

“The design alternatives to the tower were presented only as ‘potential’ and do not alter its fundamental defect i.e. the tower’s proposed 75 foot height,” they wrote.