Hooker Oak OK’d for cell service

Wearing her emotions on the sleeves of her cream-colored blouse, Chico City Councilwoman Ann Schwab made a passionate plea Tuesday night (Nov. 7) during the debate about affixing cellular-telephone receivers atop light poles in the Hooker Oak Recreation Area of Bidwell Park.

Schwab evoked the spirit of Annie Bidwell, who deeded the park to the city almost a century ago. She questioned using the park’s new—but yet-to-be-approved—master plan in decision-making. She pointed to the houses encroaching on the southeast part of the park as a project Chicoans now wonder “how that ever happened"—a cry they would echo, she feared, should the council set a “dangerous precedent to allow something to be physically built on the park that’s not for recreation.”

“I used to say Bidwell Park is not for sale,” she concluded. “In my book, it’s not for rent, either.”

The majority of her colleagues, however, did not share her strong sentiment. With a 4-2 vote, the council denied an appeal and upheld the decision of the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission to allow the telecommunications hub.

There were some concessions. The project planners, negotiating a lease agreement with the Chico Area Recreation District, agreed to reduce the size of their ground-based equipment structure from 7,500 square feet to 5,625. They also agreed to camouflage that area with heavy landscaping and not to raise the level of the lights.

All those points got included in the motion, which passed with yes votes from Dan Herbert, Larry Wahl, Maureen Kirk and Andy Holcombe. Schwab and Mayor Scott Gruendl voted no; Steve Bertagna abstained because of business with cell-phone firms.

The election-night deliberation drew 15 speakers, ranging from concerned citizens to consultants to telephone company officials. Residents such as Karen Kite and Linnea Hanson questioned whether cell towers were really needed in the area and particularly in the park. Northeast Chico mom Rose Lagler affirmed the cellular companies’ assertion that service is substandard and said she hopes her company, Sprint, “jumps on board.”

Kirk and Holcombe, members of the “progressive” majority, sided with the two conservatives. Holcombe appreciated the financial benefit for CARD and said all the categories of the appeal had been addressed (appearance, safety, noise and need). Kirk drew a distinction between Hooker Oak and the rest of the park. The ground structure dissuaded Gruendl, who said he wasn’t “in a rush to act” and added: “We’re talking about picking the lesser of two evils, and I’m not sure we have evil to deal with yet.”

The second “evil” is the proposed tower at the Elks Lodge on Manzanita, about a half-mile away from Hooker Oak. The Planning Commission approved that tower, at a height of 84 feet instead of the proposed 116, which will reduce the number of carriers who can use that tower.

That site has raised eyebrows not only because of aesthetic concerns but because it sits within 500 feet of residences, contrary to city regulations for cell towers. Councilmembers heard from two speakers that an appeal is on the way. Kirk and Herbert said they would never support the project—but they might not be on the council for that hearing.