Against strong community opposition, the Oakland Planning Commission on Wednesday night approved a permit for Verizon Wireless to build a Telcom Facility with nine cellular antennas across the street from an elementary school, a public park, single family homes and lofts.

The building is located at 1001 42^nd Street, near the border with Emeryville. In addition to the facility being within a few hundred feet from the North Oakland Community Charter School (NOCCS), which has 150 students, the cellular towers would also be located near Anna Yates Elementary School of 430 students. Ten citizens spoke against the Telcom Facility, including parents from NOCCS, owners of the Green City Lofts, a local architect and a long-time resident of the neighborhood. 

“I am frustrated at tonight’s decision,” said Julene Freitas, a NOCCS parent, “The Commission clearly ignored all the issues addressed around cell phone towers in residential areas and unanimously voted on Verizon’s behalf.  It is very clear to me that big corporations have a much higher chance of getting what they want.”

At the meeting, Verizon spokesperson, Charnel James, blamed the Green City Lofts for blocking cell phone coverage in the area, which the company says they have to rectify in order to comply with new state regulations for 911 calls.

However, opponents of the cellular antennas pointed out that such a facility does not belong in a residential neighborhood, which surrounds the vacant building, the proposed site for the facility. Residents asked the City to designate the property as a category “D”, which is an existing commercial or industrial structure in a residential zone. This designation would have required the project to examine other areas for the antennas, or a site alternatives analysis. Even though the Oakland General Plan sites the area as HBX-2, or a mix of housing and businesses, the Commission designated the building as strictly commercial (C), which exempted Verizon from looking at more industrial areas for the towers.

Oakland’s planning code, Section 17.134050, says that these types of permits should not be approved for projects that have a “harmful effect, upon desireable neighborhood character.” Residents and school parents, though, worry that this telcom facility does not fit in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood revival. Homeowners also expressed concern about property values, and parents at the school suggest it could impact enrollment.

While Verizon claimed they need better coverage in the area in an emergency situation, Steven Korovesis, an architect in the neighborhood, questioned the seismic safety of the potentially historic building which would house the Telcom facility. He also challenged the City’s signing off on the project as a minor alteration to an existing facility and thus exempting it from further code requirements. “Nine antennas mounted on a roof is hardly a minor alteration,” said Korovesis.

Other residents also worry about the impact of the telcom facility on their small businesses because of high frequency noise and electromagnetic interference. Masako Kalbach and her husband Paul Hoshino Kalbach own a video and film production business across the street from the site proposal and worry about how these disturbances will affect her husband’s audio and video recording. “This will seriously impact his work; therefore, our livelihood.”

While Verizon and the building owner have been developing this project for almost two years, they never notified the surrounding community. Cynthia Carpenter, a Green City Lofts resident and Homeowners Association President, happened to see a flyer last week posted on a telephone pole facing the street. She notified NOCCS, whose board immediately passed a resolution against the proposal last week.

Parents and residents are particularly worried about the potential health hazards of high frequency EMFs. However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits municipalities from restricting cellular towers based on health concerns. This has not stopped school districts across the country, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District, to restrict cellular towers on or near school property, based on health concerns.

Still, opponents of the cellular antennas knew they should focus their arguments on issues other than health effects. Nonetheless, commissioners did not address the zoning, seismic safety, community impact, or process of this project. Instead, council members, such as Douglas Boxer, said that as a parent he understood their health concerns but that their hands were tied. He then called for the vote.

“I am disappointed to my core,” said Carpenter. “Disappointed because all the protocols that are supposed to protect us were absent tonight.  Disappointed because all the committee members took the easy way out - cowards - and were afraid to take a stand against the mighty Verizon.  Easier to say I'm worried about exposure for my own kids and then do nothing, than to even ask Verizon to look elsewhere.”

“All we can do is evaluate design,” said Clear Channel Employee and Planning Commissioner Michael Colbruno.

But this did not satisfy Green Loft resident Michael Bertorelli and others at the meeting. “I am shocked that the Planning Commission of Oakland, which bills itself as the fourth greenest city in the U.S.,” said Bertorelli, “Seemed more concerned about the design and color of a fence hiding a cell tower than the pleas of ten citizens who took the time and effort to appear and speak out in opposition to a telecom facility in their neighborhood.”

Opponents of the cellular towers all found the decision unexpected but say that their battle isn’t over. The next step is to develop an appeal to the Oakland City Council. Vertis Whitaker, chair of the Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council, and resident of the neighborhood for over 20 years, said, “I wasn’t ready for the answer that they gave us, but the next step is going to appeal the situation. I’ve gotta fight.”

For more information:

Vertis Whitaker, Neighborhood Council: vrwhitk@aol.com

Cynthia Carpenter, Green City Lofts: ccx10257@yahoo.com

Julene Freitas, NOCCS: jujuba@mindspring.com

Note: The author is involved with the protest.