T-Mobile representatives gave locals wrong specs on proposed tower’s height
At its October 25 meeting, the Pacific Palisades Community Council revoked its decision not to take a position on a disputed T-Mobile cell-phone tower planned for a cul-de-sac on Charmel Place in Marquez Knolls after information previously provided by the telecommunications giant proved false. T-Mobile representatives reassured council members during their October 11 meeting that a ‘mono-palm,’ planned to be built next to a Department of Water and Power water tank on the residential street, would be 35 feet tall–the same level as the community’s height limit. Neighbors of that planned tower–one living as close as 16 feet away–opposed the tower, fearing it would affect their health and reduce the resale value of their houses. Those neighbors, citing T-Mobile’s written plans for a 45-foot-tall tower, said it would violate community height limits. And they urged the council to support them ahead of an October 18 City Planning Department hearing, where a zoning administrator ultimately decided to delay granting a Conditional Use Permit for 30 days. But council members voted to take no position, in large part because of T-Mobile representatives’ assertions that the tower would not violate the community height limit. ‘The height limit in the neighborhood is 35 feet,’ said Amy Pena of Sure-Sight Consulting Group, which represents T-Mobile, at the October 11 meeting. ‘The mono-palm will be 35-feet [tall].’ T-Mobile Engineer Joe Begnel repeated that assertion. Unknown to council members during their October 11 vote, the company had submitted building plans to the city in March for a 45-foot tower, not 35. ‘I think [Amy Pena] tried to cover it up,’ said Amy Carlton, who lives next door to the projected tower. ‘She said she was very sorry for the mistake. But I think she purposefully did that.’ T-Mobile’s Senior Development Manager Clark Harris told the Palisadian-Post this week that the company had always intended to build a 45-foot tower. ‘It was a mistake on Amy Pena’s part,’ Harris said. ‘She brought the wrong drawings. She had the wrong information in front of her.’ To correct the mistake, Harris said, Pena e-mailed council members Mike Streyer and Janet Turner, who represent the Marquez area, on October 16’too late for the council to change its vote before the city hearing. Frustrated by conflicting information provided by T-Mobile, Council Member Jack Allen successfully sponsored a motion on October 25 to reverse the council’s decision to stay neutral. Allen says that while the zoning for the DWP lot would allow a 45-foot structure to be built it would stick out in a community that must observe a 35-foot height limit. ‘At the time we voted when the T-Mobile representative presented the plans, we were told that the tower would be 35 feet tall,’ Allen told members. ‘But the [company plans] say the tower will be 45 feet. I think the council would want to reconsider its vote because of that information.’ Council member Quentin Fleming agreed. ‘If the council’s decision was predicated on a falsehood, that’s reason for rescinding [our last vote] right there!’ Fleming said. Not all members agreed. Highlands representative Paul Glasgall was among a handful of those who voted against changing the council’s position. He said he was unconcerned about the tower’s height and proximity to homes because ‘the towers are built to withstand all kinds of weather.’ At the council’s previous meeting, Glasgall told the concerned homeowners that a cell tower would be no more aesthetically offensive than the water tower next to which they bought homes. He also said that residents who want better cell reception were not represented at the meeting. Pena also pointed out that trees on DWP property exceeded the tower’s height. Charmel residents welcomed the council’s changed yet still undetermined position. After the council’s October 11 vote to stay neutral, they fumed outside the library’s community room about a vote they felt betrayed the interests of Palisades residents. Jack Allen plans to sponsor a motion at the council’s November 15 meeting that would oppose T-Mobile’s plans. ‘The tower would be put up in such a way that if it falls it’s not safe for the neighbor who lives 16 feet away,’ Allen said. ‘In fact, [that neighbor] has already had a tree on DWP property fall on his house before.’ The Planning Department will accept public comments on the tower until November 17. The Community Council plans to vote to take a position on the application at its November 15 meeting. But even if there were unanimous community opposition to the proposal, several federal and state laws severely constrain the city’s ability to reject cell-phone towers, making local residents’ attempts to block those plans difficult if not impossible. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits states and local governments from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of ‘radio frequency emissions.’ In other words, local fears of the hazards to health cannot be considered. And 2002 state law allows wireless providers to install wireless facilities in the ‘public right of way.’ T-Mobile’s Begnel told council members and neighbors of the project that local fears of the proposed tower are unfounded. The engineer said if emissions were measured at the nearest property line, the tower would emit only nine percent of the limit set by federal standards–that is less than what a residential wireless router emits. Begnel says the tower is needed to expand coverage to local customers. An alternate location in Marquez was considered, but T-Mobile engineers determined that it was not a practical alternative. T-Mobile’s Clark Harris told the Post that the mono-palm will be ‘well disguised, and its antennae should be completely out of sight.’ — To contact Staff Writer Max Taves, e-mail reporter@palipost.com or call (310) 454-1321 ext. 28.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
