Mountain View Voice

News - July 8, 2011

AT&T pushes for lots of small 4G antennas

by Daniel DeBolt

To feed the city's data hungry smart-phone users, the case was presented to the City Council Tuesday for installing a network of relatively small cell antennas atop Mountain View's utility poles.

AT&T and ExteNet Systems pushed for the "Distributed Antenna System" in the city's residential neighborhoods Tuesday at a City Council study session. The companies propose numerous low power 10-watt antennas, which stick up a few feet from the top of utility poles. They would be spread throughout neighborhoods, rather than on the large monopoles that might be rejected by the city and neighbors for aesthetic reasons.

AT&T's Randy Okimura said that among the area's tech savvy residents with smart phones, the "demand for data is insatiable." Data use among AT&T customers has increased "8,000 percent" since 2007, he said. "We are just trying to meet the needs of our customers."

Bill Stevens of ExteNet Systems, a utility company that leases antennas to service providers, said what he hears from cities is "make it small, make it less obtrusive. DAS allows for that."

Council members had mixed reactions.

Ronit Bryant described the idea as taking already ugly utility poles and "loading them with equipment. I would definitely prefer one big pole. Saying this is the least ugly thing we can do is an awfully sad way to move forward. This is not trying for the best solution; it is just going for the easiest and quickest way."

"I think we should ask the neighborhoods what they want," Bryant said. "There may be more people who think like me."

City staff members say they have seen a dramatic increase in the number of applications for cell towers in recent years, with 65 received since 2009. There are now cell towers on 64 sites in the city. However, there are areas not covered: all of Shoreline Park and much of the Monta Loma and Rengstorff residential neighborhoods, city staff reported in the study session Tuesday.

Staff reported that there would be a "significant" public benefit in allowing DAS. But it would require a change to the city's zoning ordinance to allow additional utility pole height, which the council could approve as early as September. DAS applications would still be subject to a design review permit and public hearing process.

A representative from Verizon had a different view on DAS, saying that the technology was less able to penetrate buildings than more powerful cell towers and monopoles. He added that utility poles could quickly become ugly with all of the boxes of equipment that may be necessary. While AT&T houses much of that equipment in central offices, Verizon does not, he said.

"If a neighborhood really needs it, then neighborhoods can choose," said council member Laura Macias.

Mayor Jac Siegel agreed. "We have 14 different neighborhoods. Ask them, see what they want."

Siegel urged the city to be flexible because the technology was rapidly changing, and cell companies were already considering newer technologies as it implements the latest. He also suggested the city allow cell antennas atop the police station's large monopole, "unless there's a security reason" not to do it.

Member Tom Means said he saw no problems with allowing cell antennas in Shoreline Park. Others weren't as supportive. "I don't really think there's a need right now to put poles in the park," said member Margaret Abe-Koga. "Can we put poles on the top of the (Shoreline Amphitheatre) tent? Make it look like a circus top." City staff said they had been curious about that as well.

Options for Shoreline Park, which may not have consistent coverage for calling 911, include cell antennas on PG&E lattice towers, which would require ground level equipment cabinets and access for service trucks.

"At this point, staff's position is to be very protective of parkland," said Zoning Administrator Peter Gilli. "If a proposal came in for Shoreline Park, we would say no."

Council member Mike Kasperzak suggested the city allow a cell antenna on top of the Rengstorff House at Shoreline Park. "I'm not really kidding about that," he said, adding that it could help fund Rengstorff House-related activities.

Macias and member John Inks also said they supported using city property for cell antennas to raise funds for city services. Three already exist on city property, including one at the Rengstorff Avenue fire station and two on Shoreline Amphitheatre parking lot light poles. The city receives $2,500 a month for each one.

Email Daniel DeBolt at ddebolt@mv-voice.com

Comments

Posted by W.Y., a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 9, 2011 at 8:18 am

It is really ugly to put up more antenna on top of utility poles. In mountain view, we already have too many boxes on these poles, and I worry that who is goging to clean up these junks in a couple of years when technologies are advanced and these antennas or boxes are not needed any more.


Posted by gc, a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:37 am

A new mono pole cell tower was placed near my office. It was sold as an unobtrusive design and would not impact the area and improve the cell coverage for our company. 8 trees were taken down along with parking for 10 cars. The 4 story "fake redwood design" looks out of place among the other 2 story trees that remain. And the ground support equipment is the size of a semi truck trailer. The chain link fence around the area fits right in as we are prisoners to the cell phone. The coverage is still poor with all the new 4G users in the area. Does anyone really notice the Google internet boxes on the poles now?


Posted by Greg, a resident of Shoreline West
on Sep 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

As a Frequent Visitor to The Shoreline Park for Concerts the sheer explosion of Smart phones and tablets in use the last few years at these events where thousands of people are located in one spot seems to constantly overload the network in surrounding areas due to simple supply and demand of bandwidth. And after reading this article, it's my opinion that those officials in charge of Shoreline should reconsider there objection to towers or Mini towers inside the Venue for simple safety reasons. Why should it wait until someone gets badly hurt and no one is able to call for help to push officials to act?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields