A proposed cell tower near a water tank on Inverness Public Utility District land has neighbors worried about public health, the environment and property values. The location, on Vision Road, has also raised questions about whether deed restrictions or access issues will hamper the proposal, which is still in its early stages.
Last month, AT&T approached the utility district to see if it was interested in allowing the cell tower—a project designed specifically to increase cell coverage and wireless internet access in Inverness.
The antenna would be 75 feet high, though the total structure would be somewhat taller, from 78 feet to 87 feet, depending on design. AT&T would put its antenna at the top of the structure, with the expectation that one or two other carriers would probably collocate.
AT&T has offered to pay over $14,000 a year to lease the site, but Ken Eichstaedt, the district’s general manager, sees improved communication as the tower’s primary advantage. While the district relies on radio communication, the public often relies on cell phones. “The linchpin of public safety is communication,” Mr. Eichstaedt said at yesterday’s board meeting, where the proposal made for a larger-than-usual meeting.
Of the roughly dozen people present, many wondered why AT&T was pursuing the Vision Road site, which they say is right in the middle of a neighborhood. They asked why AT&T was not instead looking at other sites, such as the less populated East Shore or Point Reyes Hill, in the Point Reyes National Seashore, where there are communication facilities for the Federal Aviation Administration and the Marin Emergency Radio Authority.
In fact, Verizon pursued a tower on Point Reyes Hill in 2013, when the park service conducted public scoping. The project is still listed on the park service’s website, but according to park spokesman John Dell’Osso, Verizon has not worked on the project for some time. “They would probably have to start over with a request if they were interested in doing something,” he said in an email.
Keith Kaneko, a site conditions manager for Complete Wireless Consulting, which is working on behalf of AT&T, said at the meeting that they had investigated a potential site on Drakes View Drive, on a residential property. But the property owner pulled out because of neighbors’ concerns.
He said the project is specifically designed to serve Inverness, which he said the Federal Communications Commission designated as an underserved area. “We need to be close to town to serve the community in and around Inverness,” he said.
That Inverness focus would also probably hamper moving the cell tower to the East Shore. Though Mr. Kaneko wasn’t sure how a cell tower on the East Shore would cover Inverness, he did present two coverage maps—both current coverage and coverage if a tower were sited by the water tank.
Those maps show expanded “in-building” coverage—that is, cell service strong enough to be available inside homes and buildings—in Inverness. On the East Shore, the tower would offer more transit service—for calls inside cars or outdoors—but the map showed no in-building coverage in Marshall.
“The objective is to provide in-building service” to Inverness, Mr. Kaneko said.
Several residents who live nearby spoke in opposition to the project. And of the six emails the district received in March about the proposal, four were strongly opposed; one person firmly supported it and another was waiting to understand how it would impact Marshall coverage.
Marcia Nute, who lives on Vision Road, listed a number of concerns, including adverse health effects from the tower’s frequencies, the lack of on-the-ground oversight by the Federal Communications Commission, and what she described as the F.C.C.’s standards for allowable frequencies compared to international standards. She stressed that there is a lot we do not know about the effects of such antennas.
“Yes, we’ve bought into 21st-century communication,” she said. “Let’s get smart about it [by placing such facilities] at a great distance from our communities, schools and hikers. Put it at a distance.”
Property values are also at stake in the eyes of many. “It’s going to decrease property values for sure,” Inverness resident Barbara Gaman said.
Another resident, Emmanuel Serrière, said he supported a tower for improved cell coverage. If he stands on the toilet by the window, he can get one bar, he said.
Another representative for the consulting firm, Maria Kim, said AT&T would do a frequency analysis for its own antenna but not a cumulative analysis that would account for the potential of multiple carriers. Other carriers looking to piggyback on the antenna would need to do such cumulative analyses to meet county requirements, she said.
There were also concerns about odors from backup generators on the site, which Mr. Kaneko said would be run for 15 to 30 minutes once or twice a month.
Another significant issue involving the history of the site and access to it could become a deal-breaker. The water tank land was donated to the district by Ed Conner, who still owns not only undeveloped land on either side of the tank but the land that the district crosses via an easement to access the tank. Mr. Conner said that per the deed, the land is supposed to be used for watershed and wildlife preservation purposes.
“I think it’s important that we gave the land,” he said, adding that he had planned for his children to build on the sites. “It’s inequitable that the burden falls on us for our generosity,” he said.
No action was taken on the meeting, and the issue will likely be placed on the agenda for next month. There are “a couple things we need to investigate,” board president Ken Emanuel said.
If the district decides to move forward, the next step would be to sign a letter of intent. That agreement would not commit the district to the project, but would indicate enough interest for AT&T to assemble more information, such as a frequency study, visualizations and survey work.