- Elizabeth Larson
Supervisors continue Staheli Drive cell tower project discussion; matter held over to August
LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors continued its hearing of an appeal of a Lake County Planning Commission vote to deny a proposed Kelseyville cell tower project, deciding at the end of the discussion to hold the matter over another month to further explore additional locations.
Representatives acting on behalf of Verizon Wireless agreed to the further continuance, with the matter to come back to the board at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 23.
Epic Wireless of Granite Bay, a consultant representing Verizon Wireless, appealed the commission's decision to deny the major use permit for a cell tower on a portion of a 17-acre property at 5660 Staheli Drive.
The board had first heard the appeal in June but held it over since Board Chair Rob Brown – in whose district the tower would be located – was not present for the meeting. He has since reviewed the recordings and documents in order to join the discussion.
In the meantime, Verizon Wireless and its consultants analyzed additional sites. County Principal Planner Audrey Knight said an updated report analyzed a total of 14 locations.
Paul Albritton, outside counsel for Verizon Wireless, spoke to the board about the project. Along with Albritton, on hand to answer questions were Verizon radio frequency engineer Ben Santa Maria, Andrew Lesa of Eric Wireless and Rajat Mathur, an engineer with the consulting firm Hammett and Edison Inc. of Sonoma County.
“We listened very carefully to what you had to say in June and so we revised our alternatives analysis,” said Albritton, explaining that they looked at sites suggested by members of the public and the Kelseyville Business Association.
“We've been working for four years to try and figure out how to fill this 19-square-mile area of coverage,” which Albritton said includes 3,700 residents and a three-mile stretch of Highway 29 which has 22,000 vehicle trips per day.
He said the company's preferred site on Staheli Drive covered all of that area.
“It's the significant gap that we're looking to cover here,” said Lesa, noting that the area covers the entire town of Kelseyville and the highway, and stretching up into the foothills.
Lesa said the alternative sites don't work well to cover that gap.
Albritton said the Staheli Drive location was selected due to its topography, sitting up on a slight rise.
He said that, based on federal law, the board needed to have substantial evidence to make the findings to deny the appeal. In addition, “You can't make determinations based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.”
Verizon sent out emails to customers in the Kelseyville area to gauge support on the project. Albritton said 337 Verizon customers in the area responded to the text, and said they wanted better service and a tower at that site.
“We think there is a large public constituency for this service,” he said, explaining that the data demands are doubling every year and Verizon is working to meet those needs.
The company also is transitioning from 3G to 4G service. Albritton said that upgraded service will require towers to be closer, between a mile and a half to two miles, rather that four or five miles apart.
Supervisor Jim Steele, who had faulted the company's analysis at the June meeting, said he was appreciative of the “amazing” level of effort that went into the followup study, adding they had plugged the information holes.
Businessman Mark Borghesani, who is part owner of an undeveloped six-lot, seven-acre subdivision near the proposed project site, faulted the project for being too close to residential areas. He was concerned that it would harm his family's investment in the subdivision.
“We're not against cell towers, we're not against growth. We know it's something important,” he said of the Kelseyville community.
Nina Marino, who lives across the street from the proposed location, said her only phone is a cell phone, and so she also relies on strong signals. However, she agreed with Borghesani.
“It's still an industrial, commercial project, and we're a rural residential area with single family homes and vineyards and open space,” said Marino, adding that the tower would be an “eyesore.”
Brown said he has gotten a lot of calls from people about the project, with many of them supporting it. He said he's concerned about communications during emergencies, and he's spoken to the fire chief and the California Highway Patrol, which support the project. “That's the primary focus for me.”
However, he said he wanted to try other alternative sites.
Supervisor Jim Comstock also emphasized the need for coverage during emergencies. He said there had been a massive coverage gap between Middletown and Anderson Springs several years ago that had been filled by a tower. That tower provided coverage that he said was absolutely essential during the Valley fire.
Mike Powers, a resident of Staheli Drive and a board member for the Kelseyville Cemetery District, suggested the cemetery's property as an alternative location. The 22-acre property has about 10 to 12 acres not currently being utilized, he said.
Knight noted that the cemetery property and the proposed location on Staheli Drive are only about 1,000 to 1,500 feet apart. Brown said he didn't think there is much of an elevation difference between them.
Brown added that, in addition to the cemetery, he didn't want to rule out possible alternative sites on a county corporation yard and a water tank on Sand Hill south of town.
Albritton said there was a state law passed in 2007 that prevents local jurisdictions from directing wireless companies to county or city owned property.
Brown said it wasn't a direction but a proposed alternative, and Albritton replied that Verizon likes to do business with cities and counties.
There also was the “shot clock” to consider, which Albritton said is the requirement under federal law that a governing body needs to make a decision within a certain amount of time on such projects.
He said that time limit had been extended for Tuesday's meeting, and would need to do so again.
While the company was willing to do further study, Albritton noted, “Our obligation is to show that there is no less intrusive site. We don't have to evaluate every site.”
Albritton agreed to Brown's proposal to come back on Aug. 23, adding that if there is potential for the alternative sites new designs would need to be undertaken.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
