Sonoma’s Planning Commission to grapple with 4G cell tower network

Verizon returns to the Sonoma Planning Commission this week to make another pitch for the installation of three “small cell node” antennas in downtown Sonoma to improve “wireless voice and data coverage to the surrounding area.”

Though each cell tower location is a separate agenda item before the commission, the commission is expected to consider them as a single proposal, as they share the same basic design, rationale – and controversies.

The Thursday, Sept. 12 meeting is a follow-up to earlier hearings and study sessions that took place in November of 2018 and July 2019, which produced requests for a redesign of the antennas from the commissioners, and elicited strong opposition from a number of residents.

The engineering team for Verizon, CBR Group, has responded with new designs more compatible with “Sonoma’s existing light pole theme” – as well as changes in the locations of all three proposed cell towers.

According to Sonoma Planning Director David Storer, “the new locations were chosen for places where the new lights would provide a public benefit as there was no light along the streets in the new locations.”

In the new proposal, one tower is relocated from in front of Sonoma Market to 531 Fifth St. W., in front of US Bank.

A second cell antenna has been changed from Second Street West, across from St. Francis Solano Church, to 303 W. Napa St. next to Pharmaca Integrated Pharmacy.

The third newly proposed location is 25 McDonell St., across the street from its original site next to the North Bay Insurance office building.

The design of the antenna poles is substantially changed – to mimic the twin-bulb style of historic street lights in the downtown area, and painted green. The towers are also shorter than the originally-proposed 45 feet. Now topping off at 25 feet, the smaller poles are possible because CBR is proposing newly-constructed towers rather than piggy-backing onto pre-existing street lights or telephone poles.

In its proposal to the commission, CBR Group said the new designs are intended to reflect “Sonoma’s existing light pole theme.”

“The design features, coupled with their locations, will provide for better Verizon Wireless service in Sonoma and help to better support residents, visitors and emergency service providers who rely on the Verizon Network,” said Christy Beltran of the CBR Group in the proposal.

Public response to the proposed antennae at previous meetings has included some degree of skepticism on the need for improved service to Sonoma businesses and residents, as well as concern over the health impact of high-frequency radio waves.

Critics of the Verizon proposal have argued downtown Sonoma doesn’t suffer from a lack of cell phone service. However, this past June, Verizon and other internet connections were down for most of a day due to a tree limb falling on a fiber optics line on Eighth Street East. The June 18 incident highlighted the lack of “redundancy,” or back-up coverage, in Sonoma for internet services.

Inquiries to the CBR Group about the reasons for relocation and if the new cell antenna towers would address redundancy were not responded to by press time.

Apprehension over prolonged exposure to high-frequency radiation has been a common theme, as cell-phone usage has increased dramatically the past decade. Various conflicting studies exist as to the safety of prolonged exposure to radio frequencies; and debate remains as to their methodology, reliability and pertinence.

“These new tower proposals from Verizon do absolutely nothing at all to address my concerns,” said Sonoma resident Nicole Katano, who opposes the new towers. “Verizon seems to simply ignore all the information we have presented… If they cared about consumers they would install fiber optic cable underground.”

Sonoma resident Lin Marie deVincent argues there’s no significant gap in coverage in Sonoma, and questions Verizon’s motivation in the redesign.

“My position is still that there are valid and legal reasons to deny the towers,” said deVincent, a vocal critic of the project. “It has been proven by the city’s own hired (radio frequency) analyst, that there is ‘no significant gap in coverage’ in the city. That is one of the FCC’s own designations to deny the towers.

DeVincent is also skeptical of the change in design, though that was done in response to Planning Commission request.

“(We) would rather have the towers look like what they are – dangerous, powerful, volatile cancer-causing electronics,” said deVincent. “Instead they are disguised as mild mannered street lamps.”

Added deVincent: “Just don’t stand under the light too long, you will be absorbing damaging radiation. Any bee or butterfly that decides to land on them will suffer an early death.”

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.