WEST U.S. -- New Sprint tower in Valley Glen, CA

[ZaphodB]

I was talking to one of the people on the neighbourhood council at the supermarket yesterday and she was talking about a cell tower application from Sprint to put a tower in the "triangle median" at Vanowen St and Fulton Ave in Valley Glen. When I looked it up on the VGNA's website there were not one but three applications, which I assume means there will be three providers colo'ed on one tower -- it's a very small median. It will be disguised as a flagpole.

I want to know who the other two applicants are. It can't be Cingular, because they just put a tower in the steeple of the Orthodox Church at Ethel and Vanowen, three blocks east of the "triangle".

I tried calling the city councilwoman's office, and they didn't know; tried calling the neighbourhood association office, and they didn't know; tried calling the county supervisor's office and THEY didn't know; tried calling the planning commission and was told that if I didn't have a case number there was no way for them to look it up.

Google failed me; the GIS system for the City of Los Angeles is impossible to use efficiently. Suggestions? I'd really love for it to be Verizon, since coverage is a little spotty in our house (100 metres away).

By the way, the Valley Glen Neighbourhood Association aren't planning on opposing the tower; they have asked Sprint to provide some landscaping and a bench or two to make it into a little mini-park. If I were Sprint, I'd pay the extra $1,500 or whatever to have a nice easy tower for once!

[larry]

Darn when I read the thread title I thought Sprint had already put up the tower. lol. This sounds like it will be a while before they actually get it complete.

Zaphod. I've never heard of a flagpole co-location before. Usually flagpoles have only one carrier.

[ZaphodB]

Well, there are three applications in to put a tower in that exact spot, and the "triangle" measures about 10x20x30 (hooray for Pythagoras), so I can't imagine where they're going to put more than one tower.

The tower was approved by the neighbourhood council in July -- if I could just find my way round cityplanning.lacity.org I might be able to find out more.

[larry]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB

Well, there are three applications in to put a tower in that exact spot, and the "triangle" measures about 10x20x30 (hooray for Pythagoras), so I can't imagine where they're going to put more than one tower.

The tower was approved by the neighbourhood council in July -- if I could just find my way round cityplanning.lacity.org I might be able to find out more.

I used to have an e-mail contact with the city of LA planning dept. I'll see if I can find it.

The next step for Sprint would be to have their city of LA zoning administrator hearing.

I suppose it's technically possible to do a flagpole co-location but I've never seen it happen before. You would think that Nextel would be involved with anything Sprint does now.

[larry]

Zaphod,

I found out that Sprint's tower for Valley Glen at Vanowen and Fulton will be a 50 Ft flagpole. There will be no co-location on it. It will be Sprint only. It has an estimated on air date of 7/10/2006 (that of course is subject to change).

[Andy]

Originally Posted by larry

Darn when I read the thread title I thought Sprint had already put up the tower. lol. This sounds like it will be a while before they actually get it complete.

Zaphod. I've never heard of a flagpole co-location before. Usually flagpoles have only one carrier.

I've seen poles before that are supposed to be flagpoles(but this specific one is actually missing the flag) that had 3 carriers on it.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Andy84094

I've seen poles before that are supposed to be flagpoles(but this specific one is actually missing the flag) that had 3 carriers on it.

Yeah but here in the LA/OC area it's not something that can be done too easily. To locate 3 carriers on a flagpole antenna, you figure it would have to be at least 75 feet high to provide the necessary coverage. So the carriers would have to obtain a zone variance or special use permit for that. I haven't seen it happen but it's possible. But like I said Sprint will not be sharing this tower in Valley Glen with anyone (at least not yet).

[Andy]

I forgot that we are talking about So.Cal, makes sense in that case. Would it be easier for another carrier to chime in, wanting to put their panels below Sprint's once construction is starting and approved by the city? Or would that carrier have to go through the same, long process?

[larry]

Originally Posted by Andy84094

I forgot that we are talking about So.Cal, makes sense in that case. Would it be easier for another carrier to chime in, wanting to put their panels below Sprint's once construction is starting and approved by the city? Or would that carrier have to go through the same, long process?

Yes this is So. Cal we're talking about. We don't have those big 100-250 ft towers that you see in more rural and less populated areas. Everything new is short and/or disguised now.

In this case it would actually be better for the other carrier to make a seperate installation. That way they can have two short poles instead of one tall one or they can find a nearby rooftop or structure to hide the antennas. But you never know. Co-location is sometimes easier to get through but many cities still have the same long drawn out process for that as well.

[Andy]

Thanks Larry. I wonder why cities make it some hard, especially for hidden colocations where nothing would change the appearance of the already established flag tower or something similar. With all those laws and regulations it's surprising that carriers are able to add so many sites every year in So.Cal.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Andy84094

Thanks Larry. I wonder why cities make it some hard, especially for hidden colocations where nothing would change the appearance of the already established flag tower or something similar. With all those laws and regulations it's surprising that carriers are able to add so many sites every year in So.Cal.

Yeah I can never understand it either. It wasn't like that in the old days (circa 1995) here in LA. back then a carrier could build a tower just about anywhere they wanted without having to do any kind of public hearing or obtain a conditional use permit. It was so easy back then. But Pac Bell mobile services ruined that when they built so many towers here in CA in the 90's. The cities started to get complaints about it and they started cracking down on it and changing the rules.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by larry

Yeah I can never understand it either. It wasn't like that in the old days (circa 1995) here in LA. back then a carrier could build a tower just about anywhere they wanted without having to do any kind of public hearing or obtain a conditional use permit. It was so easy back then. But Pac Bell mobile services ruined that when they built so many towers here in CA in the 90's. The cities started to get complaints about it and they started cracking down on it and changing the rules.

That's a drastic change; blame it on Pac Bell/Cingular. Was the late 90's a time when they had severe capacity issues?

[larry]

Originally Posted by Andy84094

That's a drastic change; blame it on Pac Bell/Cingular. Was the late 90's a time when they had severe capacity issues?

They were the first carrier to build a 1900 Mhz network from scratch so they needed to build many towers often times spaced a half mile apart. Then came Sprint. Then Airtouch and La Cellular decided they needed to convert to digital and expand as well. At this time the 2 800 Mhz carriers had very few towers. So around 1997-1999 is when the mass tower frenzy was happening. The rules were primarily changed because of Pac Bell.

[Andy]

Thanks for the background info Larry. I have no more questions for once.

[larry]

It must have been nice for the carriers to be able to build a tower anywhere they wanted in the city of LA (commercial/industrial zoned areas) without a permit or public hearing. That's totally unheard of today!

[Andy]

I was going to say...if they'd allow that today, there'd be chaos, lol.

[ZaphodB]

Good to know... Cingular's request for a conditional use permit at Vanowen and Ethel was approved by the zoning board but was of course challenged by some NIMBY or other. I'm sure it will continue apace.

[larry]

This thread is nearly 3 years old but I'm digging it up because Sprint has finally built this tower that Zaphod first talked about in 2005. The tower is built but is still waiting for T1's and is not yet active. Some sites take a lot longer than expected that's for sure!

[AnthroMatt]

Originally Posted by larry

This thread is nearly 3 years old but I'm digging it up because Sprint has finally built this tower that Zaphod first talked about in 2005. The tower is built but is still waiting for T1's and is not yet active. Some sites take a lot longer than expected that's for sure!

Too funny. I was wondering what the deal was with this old thread coming back from the dead.

Better late than never, I suppose!

[TelcomJunkie]

Whenever I get around to my next bulk picture upload I'll be posting pictures of this tower. I've had them for a while and I think somewhere I have some of it under construction.