Lakeport >> At the Lakeport City Council Meeting Tuesday night, the council voted 4-1 for another continuance — this time for 90 days — of the Verizon Wireless cell tower discussion, with Councilman Marc Spillman dissenting.
The issue extends back to May 13, when the planning commission approved Verizon Wireless’ application for a 72-foot tall cell tower, disguised as a monopine, to be constructed at 1875 N. High St. The city needs the new tower to make up for a coverage gap of 3.8 square miles, according to Paul Albritton, a lawyer representing Verizon. Albritton said that data usage is currently over-taxing the single Verizon Wireless tower, which will eventually run out of capacity.
Nancy Ruzicka, who owns property adjacent to the proposed location, immediately filed an appeal against the tower application, sending the issue to the city council. On June 16, the council prepared a resolution to uphold the appeal, “due to the fact that the height, appearance and location of the proposed wireless communication facility does not adequately comply with the applicable criteria and standards specified in the Lakeport Municipal Code and General Plan.”
Then on July 7, the council approved a 60-day continuance to give Verizon time to investigate other locations and designs. Over the past two months, the company reportedly evaluated 14 different locations and designs, conducted drive tests to determine coverage gaps and sent out a text message to their customers asking if they wanted the increased coverage the tower would provide. They received 281 supporting responses and 10 dissenting.
“We have conducted an exhaustive analysis of alternative locations,” said Verizon representative Jenny Walker.
Verizon stuck with claims that the proposed site on N. High Street is the least intrusive location to fill the coverage gap, particularly in North Lakeport. Albritton cited the city’s undulating topography as the main problem in finding a different location. The tower needs to be capable of looking over the topical rise to the north.
Although Verizon claims the proposed location is the least intrusive site, they did find an alternate design; the cell tower could be disguised as a 60-foot water tower, as opposed to a 72-foot monopine.
But neither the city council nor the public felt Verizon adequately investigated alternate locations. Specifically, the roof of the Lake County courthouse, where a number of service providers have placed towers, and the top of the old jail are both options which have not been explored. “Verizon hasn’t proven to me through their research and findings that that [1875 N. High St.] is the least intrusive,” said Mayor Martin Scheel.
Councilman Spillman agreed. “I’m not sure I feel all the other sites have been properly investigated,” he said.
Again, the public and the council were in agreement that the issue lies in the proposed location more than the cell tower itself. They feel the High St. location is highly trafficked and visible, and the monopine will negatively affect the area’s appearance. “One of the biggest reasons we have supported the appeal is because of the aesthetic depreciation,” said Councilman Kenneth Parlet.
“It’s going to look like a big fake tree … in a very visible area,” said Councilman Spillman.
And though the proposed site is commercially zoned property, many people feel the tower will directly affect their homes in a number of ways. In addition to the aesthetic affects, concerns also center around decreased property values, loss of business for the High Street Village shopping center and health issues related to emissions from the tower.
Rosemary Hyden, who lives across the parking lot from the proposed site, spoke on behalf of her neighbors. “All of us that live in the area don’t want it,” she said, adding, “I do fear that there is a health risk.”
Carrie Hershey, a tenant of High Street Village, is worried about spending all day working under a cell tower. Her customers also signed a petition stating that they do not want the tower near the shopping center. “It is an offense to us in the neighborhood,” said Hershey.
While there are not other trees in the direct area, Albritton said that Lakeport has many lone-standing trees similar to the monopine and insisted that the tower would look very similar to a real tree and would eventually blend into the landscape.
The public and the council alike were skeptical. Though Verizon provided mock-ups of the appearance of the monopine, many were dissatisfied. “The renderings are deceptive,” said Ruzicka.
In previous discussions with the planning commission, the courthouse roof was not an option for the Verizon cell tower due to structural issues, but those issues have now been overcome. Albritton also said Verizon had not explored the jail because they were unaware that it was a feasible location until approximately ten days ago. He added that Verizon is willing to look at the two options, but they need 90 days to see if either are viable.
The city council agreed to the 90-day continuance to investigate alternate locations only, which include but are not limited to the courthouse roof and the jail roof. “The option we have now is off the table,” said Councilman Parlet. “I would like to find another one that works.”
Many wondered why the city council didn’t deny Verizon’s application for 1875 N. High St. and have them file a new application for a different location. Some of the council wanted to avoid the possible litigation that would come with this course of action. Albritton said that if the application were denied, it would violate the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Verizon would have 30 days to to pursue legal action.
The city council felt a 90-day continuance was the “least confrontational option.”
There was general agreement between all parties that Lakeport, especially the northern area, is in need of more reliable service. “This is such an important decision that I fully support [the 90-day continuance]” said Councilwoman Mireya Turner.
Councilman Parlet echoed the sentiment. “I want to make the right decision at the right time,” he said.
The next discussion of the appeal of the Verizon Wireless cell tower is scheduled for Dec. 1.
Jennifer Gruenke can be reached at 900-2019.
