How to resolve AdBlock issue? The planning commission will meet Thursday, May 23, in the Board of Supervisors chambers in the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
The meeting begins at 9 a.m., with the cell tower discussion timed for 1 p.m. The agenda, staff reports and application for the project can be found here.
Cellco Partnership, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, is seeking a minor use permit for colocation of telecommunication equipment on an existing 60-foot-tall lattice tower at 21347 Highway 175, owned by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. and operated by AT&T and Mobility.
There would be nine antennas mounted on the tower, with ground equipment to be enclosed within a 160-square-foot small equipment shed.
The company also is seeking a variance to allow a reduction from the required 20-foot-wide access easement to the existing 10-foot-wide access easement and a reduction from the required 50-foot setback from property lines to the existing setbacks which are less than 5 feet, based on the application.
The findings required for requesting the variance include “special circumstances” that include size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that “the strict application of the development standards” would deprive it of “privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications.”
Complete Wireless Consulting Inc. of Sacramento hand-delivered the application package on behalf of Verizon Wireless in September.
“Verizon Wireless is seeking to improve communications services to residences, businesses, public services, and area travelers in Middletown and greater Lake County, California. Verizon maintains a strong customer base in Middletown and strives to improve coverage for both existing and potential customers,” the project support statement explains.
The document says that the proposed facility is needed to improve coverage by closing “a significant gap in coverage and offloading existing facilities nearby.”
“The improved wireless service will benefit residents, local businesses, tourists, commuters, and public safety communications systems in the County of Lake, including police, fire, and medical services,” the document explains.
The Lake County Sheriff’s Office has voiced support for the project. In an August letter – written a month before the application was submitted – Undersheriff Chris Macedo said he was expressing “our support for the continued placement of cell sites throughout Lake County. Public Safety agencies now rely heavily on wireless communications in the county, and we have noticed that cell & data speeds in many areas of the county are far below reliable standards, and in some areas, nearly non-existent.”
As has been common for local cell facility projects, community concerns have arisen. So far, numerous community members have submitted letters outlining concerns with the project’s location close to homes and health risks.
Many of them are citing 5G technology as a concern. However, Lake County Senior Planner Mark Roberts referred to a May 1 email from the applicant which stated, “there is no 5G plan for the site as currently designed.” That email is page 6 in Attachment 2 of the agenda packet.
Roberts also told Lake County News that, so far, the county hasn’t received any applications for 5G projects.
One of the community members who has led opposition to the project is Rosemary Cordova, who owns two homes on an adjacent property.
In particular, Cordova raised issue with the fact that the facility is only 43 inches from her property line. She quoted county regulations that require a 100-foot setback from a residential property line.
As such, the case is precedent setting, said Cordova. Today it’s her backyard. “It’s your backyard tomorrow.”
All neighboring properties are legally inhabited residences, said Cordova.
She has two homes on one property – one a rental that burned in the Valley fire and she rebuilt, and her own residence, which was damaged in the Valley fire and subsequently repaired.
Cordova, who has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, said she first heard about the project from Lisa Kaplan, director of the Middletown Art Center and a former member of the Middletown Area Town Hall board, last year. She was told later by Community Development Department staff that the project was withdrawn, but Kaplan alerted her to it being brought back in April, before legal notifications went to residents.
She said she contacted Roberts, who emailed her the application documents and gave her five days to get a response back to him for inclusion in the staff report.
“It was a steep learning curve. It still is a steep learning curve,” she said, due to the amount of information she’s had to read and understand.
Cordova has met with County Counsel Anita Grant and asked her to weigh in on the matter. She’s also met and talked to an attorney with a law firm that works on opposing such projects and has sent letters to decision makers.
“It’s a very lonely process,” she said.
Based on her research, she continues to raise issues with the project, such as questioning why there is no structural engineer’s report for the project. She said it’s her understanding that it can’t be considered a colocation project without one.
Due to its closeness to homes, she’s concerned about what happens if something falls off the tower.
Cordova said she’s invested and reinvested in Middletown. “I plan on living here the rest of my life. I’m deeply invested in staying here,” she said.
However, she has a 16-year-old son, and she said she can’t live underneath the project based on what she now knows.
Cordova said the variance is a test case for every setback in the county, and that today it’s her neighborhood, but it will be other neighborhoods next.
“That’s why it makes a difference to every single person in the county,” she said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
