Eliminating a 45-foot cellular antenna and accessory building from one Los Altos neighborhood may take more than a council vote, residents opposing the equipment learned last week after an attorney for Verizon wireless cut their victory short.
Two hours after the Los Altos City Council told Verizon to place an accessory building planned for the Giffin-Fremont site underground and out of sight from neighbors, Verizon attorney Jim Herd returned to the council podium and informed the council that the city was legally bound to keep the equipment above ground as approved by the council last December. The council had already issued the permits and approval for a monopole design with an above-ground accessory building to house air-conditioning units, he said.
The color and design of the building were the only items the council could legally change, he said.
“The vaulting condition is entirely beyond this appeal. It’s not feasible to vault (the building),” Herd said. “The point is tantamount to denying the antenna. Vaulting the accessory building is not a design (change), it’s an alternative to the (approved) building. “
Herd asked the council to reconsider its request or be prepared for a legal battle.
California open meeting laws prevented the council from reversing its decision that night, so the item will be back on the agenda for consideration at the next regular meeting Aug. 24. Verizon is scheduled to bring back more testimony about how the council’s decision will impact the company’s ability to operate a wireless antenna at the site.
“I think they believe your decision is interfering with the legal right they have. At this point, I can’t make a legal determination,” Houston said.
About a dozen neighbors attended last week’s meeting to ask Verizon to move its equipment elsewhere or use updated technology to better disguise the neighborhood from what they described as an “eyesore,” and a “big honking thing that looks like refrigerators hanging on it.”
Resident Christine Vieira Sellers said Verizon did not make a good faith effort to find other locations for the equipment, as required under city guidelines, and cited a list of alternative sites where an antenna could be placed but Verizon allegedly did not pursue, according to the property owners, including Councilman Ron Packard.
“This is the easiest and cheapest way for (Verizon) to provide coverage,” Sellers said. “This criteria meets the city’s minimum standards.”
Verizon spokeswoman Linda Spranz said the city recommended the Giffin property after neighbors protested a building-mounted antenna planned for the police station two years ago. Smaller antennas like the ones other carriers use are unavailable to Verizon due to frequency issues, she said. The monopole is the most effective way to provide better phone coverage.
“Verizon addressed many concerns. We agreed to plant larger trees to help screen the (equipment). We reduced the height of the pole by 15 feet,” she said.
Houston said it’s too late for the council to change anything but the design elements of the equipment since the council already issued permits and variances.
“All other matters are beyond our control at this point,” Houston said. Neighbor Debra Moe, who is leading the opposition, asked the council to reconsider the location based on Verizon’s “lack of good faith.” If not for that reason, then, “I think it is blight in our community,” Moe said. “Take if off the property as a design issue.”
Councilman Curtis Cole said he was stumped.
“It’s a pole,” he said. “I don’t know how to make it look any better. We’re stuck with a monopole.”
