Planning Commission denies proposal for cell tower in park

Aerial view shows the proposed location of a cell tower in Wheatfield Park.

Story updated with comment from Craig Shultz of Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District

By Doug Spoon, Editor

A request by AT&T for a conditional use permit to build a cell tower in Wheatfield Park was effectively denied by the Menifee Planning Commission by a 3-2 vote Wednesday night.

Technically, the commission's vote keeps the public hearing open until its Sept. 11 meeting, at which time city staff was instructed to bring back a denial resolution for further action. The majority of commissioners expressed the hope that alternative options are possible.

Although concerns were expressed about the possible negative health effects of radio waves from the structure, that was not the reason for the commission's denial. Legally it could not be, according to assistant city attorney Ajit Thind.

"Federal law limits what a city can consider regarding the request for a wireless communication tower," Thind told commissioners before discussion of the proposal. "We're not allowed to consider radio emissions. I know concerns have been expressed by the public, but the issues we can consider are limited to things like aesthetics and zoning issues."

According to the resolution proposed by city staff, the request by AT&T meets all FCC standards and requirements. The document also states that the project is eligible under Chapter 9.08 of the City Municipal Code, which allows wireless communication facilities in recreational and open space zones.

The concern expressed by commissioners Robert Karwin, Earl Phillips and Chris Thomas -- the three who voted to deny the request -- was the selection by AT&T of the location in Wheatfield Park. Arguably the busiest park in Menifee, Wheatfield is used by sports teams on nearly a daily basis. Large crowds would regularly be within close proximity of the 70-foot tower, which would be disguised as a clock tower and attached to the back of the park's multi-purpose room.

Moreover, Bell Mountain Middle School is only a few hundred yards to the west of that location. Although one could argue that debate over the health effects of radiation from cell towers is inconclusive, the three commissioners said they favored consideration of other, less populated, areas in the city.

AT&T's response: There aren't many options to fill a coverage gap in that part of their service area.

"We've received a lot of complaints about the service in this area," said Alexis Hadley Dunlap of Smartlink, Inc., which represents AT&T in this case, in an interview with Menifee 24/7 after the meeting. "AT&T does want to play nice with the neighbors. However, we don't have many options."

During his presentation to the commission, Tyler Kent of AT&T was asked by Thomas what other areas were considered for the additional cell tower. AT&T currently maintains three cell towers in Menifee: On top of Bell Mountain southeast of Holland Road; just northwest of the intersection of Newport Road and the 215 Freeway; and adjacent to Lindenberger Road near the east end of Menifee Lakes Country Club golf course.

Kent listed what he said are the only three other possible locations within the affected coverage area: Mt. San Jacinto College and open fields to the south and to the west of Wheatfield Park.

"Wheatfield is the only one that was zoneable and had a willing landlord," Kent said.

According to Dunlap, the administration of MSJC rejected a proposal to lease to AT&T a site for the cell tower there. She said discussions with owners of the two vacant lots "were not received with a positive response."

The willing landord at Wheatfield Park? Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District -- the same Valley-Wide that has been in a five-year legal battle with the City of Menifee over control of parks on the city's east side.

According to Tamara Harrison of the City Planning Department, the lease agreement would be 25 years. The amount wasn't disclosed. But aside from the revenue Valley-Wide would receive as owner of the property, the tenuous relationship between Valley-Wide and the City of Menifee was evident in the comments of some commissioners.

"The fact that the only willing landlord is Valley-Wide, which hates us ... I almost feel like we're being pumped by Valley-Wide," said Karwin, commission chairman.

Commissioner Chris Thomas had similar concerns.

"Why can't you force the college like you're forcing the city to accept this?" Thomas asked Kent.

"We're not forcing anybody," Kent replied. The FCC is forcing this. We've been having this discussion for years."

Thomas then asked attorney Thind for legal interpretation, considering that Valley-Wide owns the park property but the park lies within the city limits and a city commission is the one asked to rule on Valley-Wide's proposed lease agreement.

"The owner has a proprietary right in this," Thind responded. "We're dealing with somebody else's property who's already consented to this."

Thomas: "If that park ultimately will come to the city ... since that is pending, could we possibly postpone this until that time?"

Thind: "I don't when that will come to fruition, if ever."

In July 2017, the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission ruled in favor of the City of Menifee's request for detachment from Valley-Wide -- with the conditions that the action is approved through a public election and that the City pays $1 million to Valley-Wide. No election was set up and the ruling expired after a year, according to Craig Shultz, spokesman for Valley-Wide.

Shultz, who contacted Menifee 24/7 after this article was originally published, also disputed the article's description of a "legal battle" with the City of Menifee over parks on the city's east side.

"Valley-Wide is not seeking control of the parks; Valley-Wide Recreation has been serving the Menifee community nearly 30 years," Shultz wrote in an email to Menifee 24/7.

Shultz described Valley-Wide's relationship with the City of Menifee as "amicable and partnership based, as evident by the Independence Day celebration and the upcoming Soap Box Derby events."

As the applicant, AT&T and its representative Smartlink will have the opportunity to return for the Sept. 11 commission meeting and provide testimony when the public hearing continues. Dunlap said there really are no other options for another location other than those already mentioned.

Two residents addressed the commission in opposition to the proposal.

"One of the main reasons I live where I do, about 1,000 feet from this location, is because it's a place to take my family," said William Randolph. "What are they thinking, wanting to place a cell tower right in the middle of an extremely active sports park? Please look somewhere else."

"I believe everyone should've been notified about this," said Lisa Germo. "It's a no-brainer that these towers do affect people in a negative way. This is dangerous and reckless."

The proposal document included a list of residences within 300 feet of the project boundaries that were notified by mail about the public hearing.

Asked whether Valley-Wide considered the cell tower to be a potential safety problem, Shultz said the following:

"The area where the applicant proposed for the installation is adjacent to the current community building; no fields or sport areas will be affected by this as it is far away from sporting action," said Shultz. "We don’t expect any injuries resulting from participants having any contact with the new construction."