San Jose city officials catch AT&T lying multiple times during application process

May 15, 2014
28 58 7

91cf2af2-9477-4d38-b670-5154cc820f23 GroundSpeak

AT&T has been struggling as of late in dealing with cities that are starting to fight back about the location of AT&T’s cell towers.

Could it be due to AT&T wanting a city to shut down their downtown area for a tower removal, AT&T wanting to install a tower next to a middle school, AT&T wanting to install a tower above a children’s baseball field and sandbox or how about when AT&T approaches a city with an “inordinate number of requests for exemptions“?

Anyway, San Jose’s planning commission recently denied AT&T’s request to install a cell tower monopole.

Why? Well, let’s get into that.

1) Noise Pollution

The planning commission was looking to limit the amount of noise that would come from the proposed tower. AT&T claimed at a recent government meeting that only one conditioner would be on at any time. Steve Piasecki, interim director of San Jose’s Planning Department, decided to talk to the air conditioning company itself and found that two could be used at the same time. Oops.

2) Share with another tower?

San Jose’s city code suggests that cell phone companies share towers within a quarter-mile area. Couldn’t AT&T share a tower within the proposed area?

AT&T officials said they had contacted owner of the other tower, who wasn’t interested in sharing with AT&T.

“I talked to the officials from the cell tower already in place to find out why, and they said no one had called them,” (San Jose Planning Commission Director) Spinner said.

Oops.

3) Landscaping plan

When AT&T was initially pitching their proposal, they included a landscaping plan that supposedly gave the tower the necessary screening to keep it from being a distraction.

Except, the planning commission hired their own licensed landscape architect and found AT&T’s landscaping plan did not provide such screening:

“The trees couldn’t be too close to the tower and were so young that it would take them more than 10 years to hide it,” Spinner says.

Cell_phone_tower_disguised_2008 Wikipedia

I must admit that I am completely baffled as to why the planning commission didn’t approve AT&T’s proposal.

Comments

  • KingofPing

    Oops.

    (yeah, I know…but jeebus…)

    • MasterMuffin

      I was going to comment that “oops” :D

      • KingofPing

        I think they call that irony, right? (Mispelling “Oops”?)

        • MasterMuffin

          Yup :D

  • Lance

    That’s one fancy new future tree

  • Mark Washington

    That tree had me cracking up!

  • sanjoselondoner

    Just after this AT&T monopole was denied, the SJ Planning Commission GRANTED an even taller cell tower to be covered in aplastic tree in the same location! All the original community objections remain, and even increase. Those fake trees are a joke and fool no one. The only hope is to hide them among other trees, but in this case the humongous thing would stand alone! Only when commissioners puts them in their own backyards, would I become convinced they are desirable!!