‘Weird’ tree-like McKinleyville cell tower approved

Humboldt County's Planning Commission has approved a new 89-foot cell tower on Lily Avenue in McKinleyville, near U.S. Highway 101, over the objections of nearby residents. The tower will be disguised as a tree — a "monopole evergreen," in industry parlance — and partially shielded by nearby conifers. But the decision, made in a close vote at a Nov. 5 hearing, has left some neighbors upset and worried about what it means to live in the shadow of a cell tower, however well-camouflaged it may be.

Residents of the nearby Yamaha Place neighborhood had pushed for an alternate location across the highway on Letz Avenue, arguing it would be less disruptive. County planners disagreed, saying the Lily Avenue site offered better visual screening. One homeowner described the emotional weight of seeing a simulated image of the disguised tower outside her house every day. Another resident cited "peer-reviewed studies" in raising concerns about property values, while a third simply called the tree disguise "weird" and said it still stands out. Yamaha Place resident Stephanie Israel de Souza was especially blunt, saying the tower's placement could make it "financially impossible" to sell her home, effectively trapping her there.

Why This Matters for Health-Conscious Families

Stories like this one are becoming more common as carriers expand coverage into residential areas, often using "stealth" designs to ease visual objections — even as questions about long-term proximity to radiofrequency (RF) emissions remain only partially resolved. While regulatory agencies set exposure limits for cell towers, many health-conscious parents and homebuyers prefer to minimize unnecessary exposure where possible, especially given that RF levels generally decrease significantly with distance from the source. A tower camouflaged as a tree doesn't change its actual emissions — it just changes how visible the infrastructure is to the eye.

For families evaluating a home near a planned or existing cell site, it's worth remembering that total EMF exposure is cumulative — it includes not just outdoor infrastructure but everyday indoor sources too. That's why many readers researching tower proximity also look into reducing EMF from devices they control directly, like low-EMF hair dryers or low-EMF air purifiers, both common contributors to in-home exposure. Homeowners especially concerned about nearby tower signals sometimes also explore options like EMF shielding paint, which can reduce RF penetration into living spaces.

What Readers Can Do

If you're house-hunting or already live near a proposed tower site, it's worth attending local planning hearings, since — as this case shows — community pushback can shape (though not always reverse) siting decisions. Checking county planning records for pending wireless facility applications near a property you're considering is also a practical step before buying.

Originally reported by Mad River Union