Council hangs up on tower

Getting a standing ovation from concerned residents, the Huntington Beach City Council on Monday denied T-Mobile permission to install a cell phone tower in a residential neighborhood.

The council, with Gil Coerper recusing himself because he lives in the area, voted 6 to 0, upholding the Planning Commission’s Jan. 26 denial of the permit. The commission voted down the tower after determining it was detrimental to residential property values and, at least in its view, unnecessary to fill a T-Mobile coverage gap. It was T-Mobile’s third appeal to install the tower in the city.

Resident Denise Davis broke into tears as her fellow residents stood up clapping, one man yelling to the council that he loved them.

“It’s just wonderful. We put so much into this,” Davis said, explaining that she was shedding tears of joy. “A lot of us were really talking about moving — it’s just a relief.”

T-Mobile wanted to build a 55-foot cell tower disguised inside an existing 52-foot bell tower on the Community United Methodist Church’s property on Heil Avenue near Edwards Street. T-Mobile sought a conditional use permit to exceed the area’s maximum height limit.

The proposal was originally approved Nov. 4 by the zoning administrator, but residents appealed the decision to the Planning Commission.

Residents wore neon yellow signs that read “No Cell Tower” pinned on the front of their shirts to the council meeting.

Residents were concerned the tower would create an eyesore that adversely impacted their health and property values.

“I consider the Community United Methodist Church an asset to my neighborhood,” said resident John Anderson. “However, the proposal to build the 55-foot cell tower will not improve my neighborhood.”

Residents were also suspicious of T-Mobile’s claims that the tower was needed to fill a coverage gap after conducting their own test, which found the coverage to be adequate, said resident Dianne Larson.

“The proposed cell tower is not needed and would be detrimental to the neighborhood,” Larson said.

T-Mobile representatives maintained the tower was needed to meet customer demand in the area. The company has received complaints and tracked a number of dropped calls and a weak signal, officials said.

“I wouldn’t be spending a substantial amount of money to put this up in this area if it wasn’t needed,” said T-Mobile representative Joe Thompson.

Also, the residents’ tests were not scientific.

Councilman Keith Bohr also questioned T-Mobile’s claims and said the project wasn’t compatible with the neighborhood.

“I just find that the data for the gap coverage was inconclusive and unpersuasive,” Bohr said.

Thompson said the company has looked into alternative sites, but couldn’t find any as compatible as the church.

The tower would have only increased the existing cell tower by three feet, and all equipment would be buried underground, he said.

A representative of the Community United Methodist Church spoke during public comment expressing the church’s support for the tower. The church would have received compensation from T-Mobile, but the terms were not disclosed to the public.

Residents have gotten nearly 350 signatures against the cell tower and picketed the church some Sundays.