LAKEPORT, Calif. – Residents of a Lakeport neighborhood let the Lakeport City Council know Tuesday night that they didn't want a proposed cell tower near their homes, a message that council members said they heard loud and clear.
Verizon Wireless is proposing to build the tower at 1875 N. High St.
The 72-foot-high tower would be a “monopine” – designed to look like a pine tree so as to disguise its presence.
However, the residents of the area said the monopine – which during the meeting was likened to a giant, fake Christmas tree – was likely to stand out since there were no trees that size in the area, and that in some cases it was likely to block their views of Clear Lake.
The Lakeport Planning Commission approved Verizon's use permit following a public hearing held May 13, according to Community Development Director Kevin Ingram.
The project was ruled categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Such exemptions are possible on small construction projects with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area and those not located in a “sensitive environment” that the project would impact, according to city documents.
Nancy Ruzicka, whose family owns the High Street Village shopping center, appealed the planning commission's decision.
Ingram said Verizon originally had proposed a monopole – a tall, slender tower. However, the company had been concerned that the tower's appearance would be its biggest potential issue, thus the change to the monopine design in an attempt to camouflage it.
As for concerns raised about health impacts, Ingram explained that, under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments maintain authority on the placement, construction and modification of such towers, with the exception that, “Local authorities can’t
reject a request for wireless facilities based on health concerns if the facilities meet the FCC’s regulations concerning radio frequency emissions.”
What that meant, said Ingram, is that local rules on such towers can’t be more stringent than federal
ones.
Ingram said a radio frequency site compliance report prepared last year showed the proposed communications tower facility would operate consistent with all applicable federal radio frequency public exposure limits as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
Verizon also provided an analysis of four other potential sites, the best of which was the Lake County Courthouse, which has communications towers on the top of it. But structural issues with the roof ruled that option out, according to Ingram.
He said the council's options included upholding the planning commission's decision, continuing the hearing or overturning the commission's ruling and upholding Ruzicka's appeal.
If the council chose the third option, Ingram said federal law would require written findings, in which case staff would ask the council to hold the matter over in order to come back with the necessary documents.
Ruzicka told the council the tower would impact her shopping center, would be located 10 feet from the property line and 17 feet from the back of a salon.
It also is a year-round flood zone, is in an area that she said is acknowledged as a “wind tunnel,” and will impact the area visually.
In addition, she brought forward a white plastic shopping bag filled with artificial pine boughs that she said she had picked up at the base of monopines in areas including Ukiah.
Jenny Blocker, a consultant speaking to the council on behalf of Verizon Wireless, asked the council to follow the “well-reasoned” staff recommendation and the commission's unanimous approval.
“The appeal has no merit and should be denied,” Blocker said, adding that it provided no evidence that the tower didn't meet standards, let alone the substantial evidence required to deny such a project under federal law.
In all, 10 alternate sites were investigated as Verizon looked for ways to fill its “significant” gap in coverage and capacity, Blocker said.
She said there was no less intrusive feasible site, and Verizon had worked with the city for more than a year on a suitable design that would both blend in and be functional for Verizon's needs.
Blocker said a third party consultant hired by Verizon found that the emissions were within the federal limits and, as such, she asserted that denying the application would violate federal law.
That echoed statements in a letter to the city dated June 8 from Paul Albritton, a San Francisco attorney working on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
Albritton wrote that local government violates the Telecommunications Act “if it prevents the wireless provider from closing a 'significant gap' in service in the least intrusive means.”
Councilman Kenny Parlet said he originally had thought the project was a good one, until Ruzicka showed the fake pine boughs and brought up issues of maintenance and upkeep. Blocker said she couldn't speak to that other tower, as each facility is different, and she didn't know whose tower it was.
Parlet replied that he was concerned about a “duct tape and super glue” effort being necessary if the tower breaks down. Blocker said it was a valid concern, and the way to address it was by revoking the use permit if the facility isn't kept up.
Neighbors say no
Close to two dozen people were present for the hearing, many of them also speaking to the council against the tower's proposed location and asking for it to be placed elsewhere. The council also received a petition signed by 29 residents of the area in support of the appeal.
Former Realtor Elizabeth Kaneshige, who lives about 400 feet from the structure – as the crow flies – on 20th Street said the facility will hurt her property value.
“Why should I lose money so they can make money?” she said.
Both she and her husband also have health concerns that she said resulted from environmental factors, pointing to living under cell phone towers for more than 20 years while living overseas.
Warren Myrick, who lives on Terrace Drive, said the people in the area don't want the tower. “Why isn't that good enough?” he asked
“This is our town. If we don't want it here, we say, 'Hey, find a different location.' Different locations have been identified. Let's send them to a different location,” he said.
Karen Bettencourt, who lives on Fairview Way, said she has a breathtaking view that she has enjoyed for decades, and that the monopine would be “right smack in the middle” of the view from her deck.
She said she has spent years fixing up her home, and questioned if she would be compensated for the loss in property value. She also questioned the tower's placement near a neighborhood.
Bob Bridges, a retired county counsel who has lived in Lakeport for 38 years, said – in reference to issue Ruzicka raised – that flooding is a concern in the area, noting he has seen water 10 to 12 inches over High Street.
The area also is “the windiest place in Lakeport,” he said, noting that sailors know they can come and catch the wind that comes off of Del Lago.
Kim Beall said she doesn't live in the neighborhood, but was concerned about what it could mean for other residential areas.
“If you put something like this up in one residential area,” it will happen over and over again, she said.
Beall added, “I've lived in the country long enough that, if they think that looks like a tree, they're from the city.”
Following the end of public comment, Blocker reiterated to the council that the location was the best to address the service gap. She said the facility would be raised one foot to deal with the flooding concerns.
She added that the city's Community Development Department would have the final approval on the monopine's design and color before issuing the building permit.
Council members had questions about radio frequency testing and aesthetics, with Parlet noting that he didn't believe the monopine – which he called “a 72-foot Christmas tree” – fit with the area's design.
Councilman Marc Spillman recalled voting against a 2009 plan for a monopine – while a member of the city's planning commission – that had been proposed to be located a block and a half from the city's historic downtown. He said the High Street location was a high traffic area near homes, and it came down to aesthetics.
Councilwoman Stacey Mattina said the council had heard from the entire neighborhood. For those who couldn't attend the meeting, she received emails.
She pointed out that no community members had spoken up in support of the tower. “They're telling me they don't want it in their backyard and I'm listening.”
Mayor Martin Scheel said he also had concerns about the monopine's aesthetics, especially as the structure aged.
During the discussion, he asked Blocker about the next most viable site if the one on North High Street was ruled out. She replied that they most likely would not have a feasible site, and would move forward, ignoring the needs of Lakeport clients and focusing elsewhere.
Parlet questioned Verizon's “it's this or nothing” approach, saying there had to be room for negotiations.
Blocker said, ultimately, another site would be up to a Verizon radio frequency engineer. “That would not be a call to make right now.”
Scheel asked fellow council members if they had any consensus on a decision, with the majority voicing support in favor of Ruzicka's appeal. Councilwoman Mireya Turner said she felt the need to have more information to evaluate before making a decision, and requested a continuance to have staff look more closely at the environmental review.
City Attorney David Ruderman said they could send the matter back to the commission or give it to staff with direction to bring it back after further environmental consideration. Ingram pointed out that his staff already had given it an environmental review under CEQA, and that it hadn't risen to the level of an initial study.
Scheel said that, for him, the concern wasn't environmental but aesthetic.
Parlet added, “Personally, I don't like playing the CEQA card at all,” which he said would send a negative message to developers.
Ultimately, the council voted unanimously to continue the matter to its July 7 meeting, and to direct staff to prepare potential findings to support Ruzicka's appeal.
In other business on Tuesday, the council quickly approved the final version of the 2015-16 budget, passed a resolution extending a stage one water emergency and identifying which days residents could do outside irrigation, approved the purchase of a $30,875 card lock system, approved an application for a $4.6 million state HOME grant to support a proposed senior housing project on Martin Street and gave the go-ahead for a contract with Pavement Engineering Inc. for engineering services for design of the Bevins Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Neighborhood speaks out against Lakeport cell tower plan
- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On