Council delays decision on Wheatfield Park cell tower

A graphic from the AT&T proposal shows the design of a 70-foot cell tower in Wheatfield Park.

The Menifee City Council voted unanimously Wednesday night to continue to its Dec. 4 meeting the matter of a proposed cell phone tower to be placed in Wheatfield Park.

The public hearing was the result of an appeal by AT&T of an earlier decision by the Menifee Planning Commission to recommend denial of the project. The plan calls for a 70-foot cell tower to be built in the middle of Wheatfield Park, which is one of the busiest parks in Menifee and is adjacent to Bell Mountain Middle School. Estimated cost of the project to AT&T is $1.2 million.

Of the eight residents who addressed the council regarding the project, seven were opposed to it. Emotions ran high in the packed council chambers as AT&T representatives attempted to justify their project location. Council members stated they had questions that required additional research as they tried to weigh overwhelming negative public opinion against the prospects of losing an expensive lawsuit in court if the project is denied.

City attorney Jeffrey Melching told council members that they must present evidence that the project does not comply with city standards in order to issue a denial. Moreover, he said, federal law dictates that any alleged effects of radio frequency emissions cannot be considered in the decision.

Beyond that, he said, federal law could trump local government if it is determined that a gap in cell coverage exists, because communication companies have been federally mandated to eliminate such gaps to improve communication with first responders in case of an emergency.

“You would have to show evidence it doesn’t comply with local regulations,” Melching said. “Even then, federal law says if there is a significant gap in coverage, local government has to give way to federal law.”

The question then became whether a gap in coverage actually exists. Representing AT&T, Alexis Dunlap presented a map she said showed gaps in AT&T coverage between three existing cell towers – the closest being mounted on Bell Mountain. In response, council member Lesa Sobek said she and Melching had studied data on AT&T’s own website showing full coverage.

“I can’t make a decision tonight because too many questions are not answered,” Sobek said. “You have your own website saying you have full coverage here.”

Dunlap’s response was that a “significant gap” in coverage is not defined as a site where a cell phone call cannot be made.

“It’s a matter of yes, you can make a call, but it comes down to, in the event of a national emergency, could calls go through? This area would be overloaded," she said.

Melching said that point could be argued, although he warned that he couldn’t guarantee an interpretation by a court if a lawsuit were to be filed.

“Telecommunication litigation is expensive,” he said. “The testimony would be whether a gap is truly a significant gap. You’ve got to have an expert to do the research and explain what a gap truly is. Without a doubt, that would be an expensive process.”

Pressed by mayor pro tem Greg August to find a more suitable location for the cell tower, Dunlap responded that her team had spent two years trying to find another spot within the area where the gap exists. Representatives of Mt. San Jacinto College and Bell Mountain Middle School refused to lease property at those locations and the only other locations are residential neighborhoods, she said.

That left Wheatfield Park. Ironically, although many city events are held there, the property owner is Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District, which owns and operates parks on the east side of the 215 Freeway. The City of Menifee is continuing with legal efforts to win control of those parks, including Wheatfield, away from Valley-Wide.

Map shows AT&T's "search ring" for the location of a cell tower to close a "significant gap" in coverage.

“I think a lot of things are stacked against us ultimately winning this,” said council member Matt Liesemeyer, referring to possible litigation if the project is denied. “But in a year, this thing is going to be torn down, because we’re going to win [control of the parks]. “You’re telling me you’re willing to put $1.2 million into this on the risk you can lose it in a year?

“It stands to reason that in a year, it’s going to be our park. And when that happens, I would be the first to cancel your lease.”

August asked Melching whether the City would be in a better position if its issues with Valley-Wide were resolved and the City owned Wheatfield Park. Melching said it would be.

“A government agency sometimes wears two hats – governing body and land owner," Melching said. "If the City was the land owner, it would also wear the hat of landlord, but we aren’t.”

Dunlap told council members her team had “exchanged multiple phone calls” with city staff over a period of months and were told Wheatfield Park would be a suitable location for the cell tower. She also disputed the argument by public speakers that a 70-foot tower in that location would be an invitation for youths to try to climb the structure.

“There would be anti-climbing measures on the tower,” Dunlap said. “The city plan does allow me to place a cell tower at this location. I hope my presentation shows that we have done our homework. I we want to work with the community, but we also need to improve coverage in the area so first responders have the ability to respond to calls that come in.”

Sobek asked what AT&T would’ve done if Valley-Wide had refused to lease the property to them. Julio Figueroa of AT&T responded that the only alternative would be to place numerous macro cell towers, typically mounted on light fixtures.

“Would the community be willing to have us put 100 small cells as opposed to one?” Figueroa asked.

Betti Cadmus, who lives in the area in question, told council members she believes placement of the cell tower at that location would have a negative effect on property values. She also cited reports of cell towers catching fire or collapsing.

Lisa Germo, another resident speaking in opposition to the cell tower, said AT&T’s request is “a form of bullying from an industry that regulates their own laws and standards.”

The matter will be taken up again at the Dec. 4 council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 29844 Haun Road.