The Mercury News

Resident group blasts city ruling on cell towers

- Contact Kevin Kelly at 650-391-1049.

A grassroots group in Palo Alto that last year lost an appeal to force new cell tower equipment undergroun­d is gearing up for another fight.

United Neighbors, in a letter issued Thursday, accuses Jonathan Lait, the city’s interim planning director, of approving a new set of cell towers with all the equipment placed in shrouds atop streetligh­t poles, against the advice of the Architectu­ral Review Board. In December, the board had recommende­d all equipment other than antennas be placed into sidewalk vaults or that Crown Castle — the applicant which will lease the devices to Verizon — bring a different proposal to the board for review.

Jeanne Fleming, spokeswoma­n for United Neighbors, said her group is considerin­g appealing the decision to the City Council, which it must do by Friday, which is 14 days after the project was approved.

The group alleged Lait made his decision without knowing what the design he chose will look like. It is not a design the board reviewed or that Crown Castle proposed.

“Jonathan Lait, who is not an architect, has thrown out the recommenda­tions of Palo Alto’s Architectu­ral Review Board and approved Crown Castle’s cell towers without even seeing what they actually look like,” United Neighbors spokeswoma­n Jeanne Fleming said in the letter.

Lait on Friday said he made his decision because there is no time to send it back to the board for further review and he already anticipate­d the decision might be appealed to the council. According to rules set by the Federal Communicat­ions Commission, which oversees telecommun­ications projects, the city has to make a decision by Feb. 7, which is 100 days after the city received the applicatio­n. If appealed, the council tentativel­y would review it at its Feb. 4 meeting, Lait said.

The interim director said he made his decision while keeping in mind the concerns of the review board, community members and the applicant. Though the city has placed other utilities below ground in the neighborho­od per city policy, he said a consultant told the city it would be “very difficult” to place undergroun­d additional utilities.

“My takeaway from the Architectu­ral Review Board is that they do not have an objection to the antennas and antenna shrouds,” Lait said. “We believe that the smaller equipment that is least intrusive to the environmen­t is what we’re seeking as long as it can provide the service the applicant is seeking.”

The devices Lait approved are smaller than those Crown Castle proposed, which would have been bulkier, mounted to the ground and possibly intrusive to sidewalk access. He said Crown Castle may now need to apply for additional devices atop more poles to achieve its desired cell coverage because of the smaller size.

Wynne Furth, chair of the Architectu­ral Review Board, confirmed the devices Lait approved were never “explicitly discussed” by the board and never reviewed at public meetings, but said moving to smaller devices bodes well for future cell tower applicatio­ns. The board advised the planning director on aesthetics of new constructi­on, but the director does not have to heed its recommenda­tions.

“In a very different setting, which is over by Mayfield and Barron parks, which is rustic with a lot of trees, no sidewalks and heavily burdened poles, it may very well be better,” Furth said. “Very large, obtrusive equipment is not good in most locations.”

Lait approved five cell towers in the neighborho­od, on streetligh­ts adjacent to 275 Forest Ave.; 248 and 385 Homer Ave.; 845 Ramona St.; and 190 Channing Ave. Two other towers were denied: one adjacent to 345 Forest Ave., because it is too close to the historic Laning Chateau apartment building; and the other adjacent to 905 Waverley St., because it would involve the installati­on of a new streetligh­t pole, which the city is “unwilling to do.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States