{"id":228766,"date":"2016-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-06-17T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sdnews.com\/san-carlos-rec-cellular-facility-moves-ahead\/"},"modified":"2016-06-17T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T07:00:00","slug":"san-carlos-rec-cellular-facility-moves-ahead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/san-carlos-rec-cellular-facility-moves-ahead\/","title":{"rendered":"San Carlos Rec cellular facility moves ahead"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Doug Curlee | Editor at Large<\/p>\n

Various sides compromise on 50-foot clock tower<\/strong><\/p>\n

The battle over whether to place a cell phone relay facility on the grounds of the San Carlos Rec Center last week came to a conclusion that no one from the neighborhood was ecstatic about, but one that a majority could accept.<\/p>\n

The hearing before the Navajo Community Planning group picked through three possible alternatives for the cell towers, quickly eliminating the one that just about everyone, including T-Mobile, didn\u2019t much like \u2014 two 70-foot light towers that would have invited nighttime activity there that isn\u2019t happening now.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe lights were just really unpopular, and we get that,\u201d said Jerrod Ploof, who heads up the effort for T-Mobile. In fact, this was the second time this had come before the planning group. It was previously rejected by the advisory group because of the lights question.<\/p>\n

\"Photosim3<\/a>
A digital rendering of the proposed clocktower cellular antenna on the San Carlos recreation Center. (Courtesy of T-Mobile)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The second alternative was a fake eucalyptus tree, and it was little more popular than the lights had been.<\/p>\n

Area residents Chuck and Barbara Carter, speaking separately, both panned the idea of the tree.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose trees never get taken care of, and we\u2019ve all seen them turn blue and ratty-looking very quickly,\u201d Chuck said.<\/p>\n

Chuck Schein, on the other hand, said he could live with the tree if he had to. \u201cIt would fit the park-like setting already there.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the least offensive alternative (which is not the same as saying everyone loved it) is the 50-foot clock tower to be attached to the rec center gym and office building. The Carters supported it as the least offensive method of accomplishing what few of them actually wanted \u2014 the cell phone facility in any form.<\/p>\n

To be truthful, if everyone there had been asked to vote on the issue, it\u2019s likely they\u2019d have voted to block any cell phone facility, but that apparently is not an option.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, there was very little mention of possible health risks from cell signal radiation, which has been a central argument in other cell tower controversies we\u2019ve covered in the past. The main problem for everyone here was light pollution from those 70-foot towers.<\/p>\n

The planning group eventually voted 9-2 to approve the 50-foot clock tower concept, with the caveats that T-Mobile maintain the tower and the clock, which Ploof said it would, and that all revenues the city derives from the lease to host the cellular facility come back to San Carlos.<\/p>\n

Chairman Matt Adams admits that\u2019s not going to happen, but says it doesn\u2019t hurt to ask.<\/p>\n

Meggin Hurlburt, who has emerged as a leader of the anti-cell facility group, said \u201cthis is not over!\u201d as the board was preparing to vote.<\/p>\n

In all truth, though, the issue of whether or not to build the cell tower is likely all over, except for the voting \u2014 first at the City Planning Commission and then at the City Council.<\/p>\n

Planning and land-use people at the city point out that T-Mobile has in fact satisfied all the legal requirements to install and operate a facility at San Carlos Rec. There is a demonstrated need for better cell phone coverage in that part of San Carlos. In short, it\u2019s probably going to happen \u2014 and \u201cprobably\u201d may not be a strong enough word.<\/p>\n

\u2014Reach Doug Curlee at doug@sdcnn.com.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Doug Curlee | Editor at Large<\/p>","protected":false},"author":766,"featured_media":228767,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"11558","_seopress_titles_title":"San Carlos Rec cellular facility moves ahead","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":[],"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"jnews_override_counter":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[11547,11558,11551,11550],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-features","category-mission-times-courier","category-news","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228766","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/766"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228766\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/228767"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}