Lake County Planning Commission denies Middletown cell tower colocation project
- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Thursday the Lake County Planning Commission denied a cellular communications colocation project in Middletown that had drawn the ire of residents due to its close proximity to homes and their concerns over negative health impacts.
Commissioners Batsulwin Brown and Dan Camacho, and Chair John Hess unanimously voted down the minor use permit and variance request submitted by Cellco Partnership, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, for the project at 21347 Highway 175. Commissioners Bob Malley and Daniel Suenram were absent from the meeting.
Verizon proposed to place nine 4G antennas on a 60-foot-tall lattice tower built 37 years ago and owned by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. and operated by AT&T and Mobility.
One of the key issues for residents was that the tower is on a 0.15-acre property surrounded by residences.
The Lake County Zoning Ordinance requires 50-foot property line setbacks for such projects from commercial properties and 100-foot setbacks from homes. In this case, Verizon was seeking a variance to reduce the setback to, in the case of the distance from Rosemary Cordova’s property, 43 inches.
Community Development Department Senior Planner Mark Roberts noted that in 1984 the project site and surrounding parcels were zoned “R-3-MH,” multi-family residential, transient residential, professional office district and mobile home district. In 1990, the project parcel and adjacent and surrounding properties were rezoned “CS-DR-SC,” which means community commercial-design review and scenic combining district. The existing residential dwellings therefore became nonconforming uses.
Roberts said some of the community concerns communicated to the county about the project include the existing tower’s structural integrity, emergency vehicle access, the use permit, effects of radio frequency emissions, the use of 5G on the site and impact on property values.
Community Development Department staff had recommended approval, finding that the site was the least intrusive and trying to locate another would create unnecessary hardships. They also found that the variance conformed to the general plan.
Gerie Johnson, a land use planning specialist for Complete Wireless Consulting Inc., representing Verizon, went over the existing project conditions and noted that the area is zoned for commercial uses and development.
Johnson said that, as a wireless carrier, Verizon is required to have active licensing with the Federal Communications Commission, which wouldn’t allow Verizon to maintain its license if it didn't maintain federal regulations on how to operate, including complying with radio frequency emission requirements.
Hess asked Johnson why a structural analysis wasn’t submitted with the application. Johnson said that, due to its cost, it’s typical practice to submit that analysis at the building permit stage so it incorporates changes suggested by staff.
Referring to the staff report, Hess replied that it’s standard to submit that analysis at this point in the process. Johnson said a comprehensive structural analysis would be submitted with the building permit.
She said colocation reduces impacts to the environment and clusters similar uses. Johnson also cited the benefits of improved wireless services, including providing in-building services to 1400 residents, new in-vehicle service to Middletown, and improved wireless service for law enforcement and fire.
Health, property, precedent concerns
Several dozen people attended the Thursday afternoon hearing, and during an hour’s worth of public comment, the commission heard from 19 community members, all of them opposed to the tower colocation.
Many pointed to their investments in Middletown and their fears that their health would suffer. Those who owned properties were concerned they would lose value and those who owned rentals said their tenants were giving notice that they would move if the tower was approved.
Cordova has been an outspoken critic of the project, rallying community support and submitting extensive comments to the county.
On Wednesday, ahead of the meeting, she submitted a 13-page letter to the commission that argued a major use permit is required. She also pointed out project inconsistencies and raised issue with numerous items not included in the application packet – including some reporting requirements, lack of maps and the structural engineer’s report, and information on the site’s capacity for expansion. She questioned again the variance and the setback that’s inches from her property line. The letter was provided at the meeting.
During Thursday’s meeting, Cordova again referred to the lack of a structural engineer’s report, as required by Article 71 of the Zoning Ordinance. She said that report would look at what modifications are necessary for the tower and give the project more scrutiny.
“The tower cannot be used as it is now,” she said, noting it’s a 37-year-old tower which she said has been abandoned.
Granting the project a variance would give it and the property special privileges, she said. “This is all about 43 inches.”
Cordova, who became emotional as she spoke, held up a metal rod to show them how long 43 inches is. “It's not far enough,” she said, asking them through tears to deny the variance because the project constituted a nuisance.
Rev. Julia Bono of the Rainbow Church of Living Light also spoke against the project. Reading her comments from her cell phone, she raised concerns about impacts on health and said there are 900 signatures on a petition opposing the tower.
Bono said cell towers are listed on property sale disclosures and can reduce property value by 20 percent. She demanded they take the property value and health concerns into consideration.
Glenn Goodman, who doesn't live in Middletown but came to express his concerns about 5G technology, said people are being used as guinea pigs as the new technology is rolled out.
He said human health and intelligence are at stake. “I think we're just careening toward human extinction.”
Lisa Kaplan, the director of the Middletown Art Center, pointed to the reductions in setback and the tower’s impact on neighbors.
“Verizon is not necessary in Middletown,” she said, explaining that the town has enough cell reception. She said the tower should be put out in the hills.
Kaplan said the community has been hurt by wildland fires, and she questioned how many people have had their rebuilding efforts put off due to the need to conform to new building codes, yet the tower project was getting a pass.
Francisco Rivero, Lake County’s former sheriff, also spoke to the commission, explaining that he and his family own six properties within 1,000 feet of the tower.
Two of his tenants were in attendance and had spoken against it, another is moving out and still others have indicated they’ll move if it’s approved. “Me, too,” he said, adding he wouldn’t subject his family to the tower’s presence.
He said the FCC has shielded telecom companies by setting wireless radiation exposure rates far above other countries. “They call that safe,” he said, adding that the FCC has limited local governments’ ability to consider legitimate health concerns because it has been corrupted by lobbyists and unfettered corporate greed.
Ava Kennedy, who lives across from Middletown High School, told the commission, “This cell tower is really close to where all of these kids are going to school every day,” she said, adding, “The variances are there for a reason.”
Like Kaplan, Kennedy said many community members have struggled to rebuild after the Valley fire, and yet the tower was proposed for the variance. “No one in town wants this tower. We hate this tower, and you are here to serve us.”
Johnson asked Daniel Ro, an engineer with the Sonoma-based firm Hammett & Edison, to speak to the commission. The firm did the radio frequency exposure report for the site.
Ro told the commission that, based on the operating specifications and the simulations, the project was estimated to have less than 10 percent of the FCC public exposure limit.
As he left the podium, someone asked him if he would live under such a tower. “I do,” he said.
Commission makes decision
“There are so many ways you can measure how straight-jacketed we are” in terms of addressing location, Hess said once public comment had wrapped up, adding that FCC rules have further throttled their ability to stop the projects.
He pointed to HR 530, the Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019, a bill introduced in Congress in January by Bay Area Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, which is meant to overturn FCC regulations limiting the ability of local governments to regulate the deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure. Congressman Mike Thompson, whose district includes Middletown, is a co-sponsor.
Hess said he couldn’t support the requested variance, which earned a round of applause.
Deputy County Counsel Nicole Johnson suggested the commission could move to continue the matter until the rest of the members were present.
“We're prepared to proceed today,” said Hess, with Camacho agreeing.
Community Development Director Michalyn DelValle and Johnson held a sidebar to discuss how to proceed, with Johnson then asking for a break to see if a split vote would be a denial or a continuation. Hess said he did a head count and all three commissioners were opposed to the project.
Staff then asked for a break to work on the motion language, returning about 20 minutes later.
Camacho then offered four separate motions, starting with finding that the minor use permit and variance aren’t exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act due to it having an impact on the environment; that the minor use permit didn’t meet the zoning ordinance requirements because they couldn’t find that it was not detrimental to the comfort, safety and general welfare of the community; that the variance didn’t meet the zoning ordinance requirements; and that the colocation facility doesn’t meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Brown seconded all of the motions, with 3-0 votes on each.
The applicant has seven days to file an appeal of the commission’s decision.
Lake County News emailed Johnson to ask if Verizon intends to file an appeal, but she did not immediately respond.
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.