San Carlos planning commissioners on Tuesday night gave the go-ahead to T-Mobile’s proposal to erect a 50-foot-tall cell phone tower despite getting an earful from residents who say the existing service is adequate and the plan could pose safety hazards and reduce property values.
Planning commissioners voted 3-1 to approve a conditional use permit, allowing the wireless communication provider to place a fake tree on a California Water Service Co. site at 882 Heather Drive.
T-Mobile representatives told commissioners Tuesday night they expected demand for wireless service to increase.
“We want every T-Mobile customer to be able to drive (in this area) and have consistent coverage as our industry standard requires,” T-Mobile representative Misako Hill said. Hill applied for the permit on behalf of her company.
The fake tree will include more than 70 branches to help it look real; its ground equipment will be camouflaged by a masonry wall. The company also agreed to use realistic bark material and covers to help disguise the antennas.
About 10 residents voiced their opposition to the project at the Tuesday night meeting and said they gathered more than 150 signatures of community members against the plan.
“We have demonstrated that the need just isn’t there and that this tower would do more harm than good,” said Marc Weinberger, who created an online petition. He was also one of several residents who went to about 50 homes with T-Mobile phones to test the service. Neighborhood service was fine, he said.
The residents presented planning commissioners with their findings Tuesday night.
“Aesthetically, this project would be an eyesore for the neighborhood,” said Mary Vavuris, who lives across the street from the planned site.
Her husband James Vavuris said the tower will have a “severe impact on the property value” in the neighborhood and that the project is also a fire hazard and could collapse.
One resident spoke to commissioners after the public hearing ended and argued that approving the tower would set a bad precedent and could lead to other companies building towers in the neighborhood.
Commission Chair Steve Divney, however, said the “floodgates argument” didn’t work because each project is reviewed on its own merits.
Divney compared the proposal to when Starbucks sought to open a second location in downtown. Though some residents said there were enough cafes already, it wasn’t up to the city to determine the best economic interest of the company, he said.
San Carlos City Attorney Greg Rubens said the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and the Federal Communications Commission limit the control cities have over cell tower proposals, and added that the law wasn’t drafted well.
Commissioner Scot Marsters, who at one point drew applause from residents in the audience, was the sole vote against the proposal.
“For me, they just haven’t proved the necessity of the additional antenna,” he said after the meeting.
Weinberger said he plans on appealing the decision to the city council.
“I’m deeply disappointed in the planning commission and their lack of concern for the interest of the residents of San Carlos.”
E-mail Jesse Dungan at jdungan@dailynewsgroup.com.