City Council denies proposal for cell tower in Wheatfield

The position of a proposed cell phone tower in Wheatfield Park is shown in this graphic.

The Menifee City Council on Wednesday voted 3-2 to deny the placement of an AT&T cell tower in Wheatfield Park.

This was the fourth city meeting to address the proposal, which calls for a 70-foot cell tower behind the community building in the middle of Wheatfield Park. The design calls for it to look like a clock tower. After two Planning Commission meetings in which the project was discussed and recommended for denial, the City Council considered AT&T's appeal in two meetings and reached the same decision.

The denial is not complete, however, until city staff returns a resolution of denial for final approval by the council at its Dec. 18 meeting. It is possible that discussions between city officials and AT&T representatives on an alternative site could be held in the interim, council members and staff acknowledged.

According to Alexis Dunlap, who once again represented AT&T at Wednesday night's meeting, no such alternative site exists.

Dunlap said she had gone back to AT&T engineers about the feasibility of an option suggested previously by council members to use a number of small cell sites -- typically placed on light poles -- instead of the Wheatfield tower, which is considered a macro cell site.

"It was determined by our radio frequency engineers that a macro tower is needed to close the coverage gap," Dunlap said. "We may have coverage in the area, but it is not what is considered reliable coverage. Some users inside a structure or running an in-home business will not have the necessary coverage. In addition, some users may be able to make calls, but not do things like use streaming services."

Dunlap repeated her previous statement that AT&T engineers determined there were only three viable options for a cell tower needed to improve coverage in the area. Two options -- Mt. San Jacinto College and Bell Mountain Middle School -- were eliminated when the land owners rejected the proposal. The owner of Wheatfield Park -- Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District -- agreed to lease property to AT&T for a cell tower there.

Council member Greg August recommended that the council deny the proposal and reconsider it in the future, when city officials expect the City of Menifee to win jurisdiction over all parks on the east side of the 215 Freeway -- including Wheatfield Park -- away from Valley-Wide. The City continues in legal efforts to achieve detachment from Valley-Wide.

August pointed out that in the current environment, Valley-Wide would receive all the lease payments and the City would receive nothing.

"Who's the beneficiary? Valley-Wide, not the City," August said. "The reason I will vote to deny is that we're the regulators but they're the property owner. It would be in our best interests to wait until our jurisdiction is approved. If we approve this now, there's a good chance some of the money paid to Valley-Wide would be spent outside our city."

Valley-Wide owns and operates parks and supervises recreation services in Hemet, San Jacinto, French Valley and Winchester, in addition to parks on the east side of the 215 Freeway in Menifee.

Another concern was raised by council members Dean Deines and Lesa Sobek about what they believe is a possible cell tower site just west of the freeway that has not been given proper consideration by AT&T officials. AT&T's coverage ring for this area extends westbound past the freeway to vacant land there.

Dunlap said AT&T did not receive "a viable response" from that property owner.

"Our normal procedure is to send a certified letter to the property owner," Dunlap said. "If they don't respond to a certified letter within 30 days, we determine they are not interested. We do not have a willing landlord there."

Deines asked Dunlap whether she felt AT&T had made every effort to contact that land owner for a response.

"Your definition of a willing landlord is different than mine," he said. I would hope that AT&T would've taken an extra step to look at the other side of the freeway."

Part of AT&T's argument was that improved cell phone coverage in that area is needed to ensure sufficient communication in case of a national emergency. Local police and fire officials could not provide data to support or disprove that argument, however.

"If we predicate everything on the possibility of a national emergency, why don't we double police and fire coverage?" August asked.

Mayor Bill Zimmerman expressed concern over the possibility of a lawsuit filed by AT&T, and whether the ruling of a judge in AT&T's favor would be not only costly, but might compromise the conditions the City had placed in the initial proposal regarding the tower's design, etc.

"You're automatically assuming AT&T is gong to file a lawsuit," August responded. "The way to handle this is to vote for denial and then sit down with AT&T and try to find an alternative."

Ultimately, August made a motion to deny the project and Sobek seconded the motion. That motion passed 3-2, with Zimmerman and Deines voting against it.

Council members also took note of objections from several residents in past Planning Commission and City Council meetings about the wisdom of putting a cell tower in a public park, amid ballfields often used by youth.

"City staff has two weeks to draft the denial resolution, so you can continue to talk in the meantime," city attorney Jeffrey Melching said.