CELL TOWER APPEAL HEARD IN SUPERIOR COURT
On Friday morning, March 14, Mammoth residents filled a Mono County Superior Courtroom to observe a case challenging the Town’s approval of an AT&T cell tower at Fire Protection District Station No. 2 on Old Mammoth Road.
The case was brought forward by the Snowcreek VII Condominium Owners Association, who appealed to the Court in November in response to Mammoth Town Council’s denial of its use-permit appeal in April, 2024.
The proposed tower is an 80-foot tall “stealth monopine.”
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Ivo Keller, argued the Town and AT&T manipulated local and state codes to approve the tower’s size and location, and the defendants’ lead attorney, Alisha Winterswyk, countered that residents were “writing in words” to the codes that didn’t exist.
At the hearing’s conclusion, Judge Gerald Mohun took his ruling under submission and has yet to release a statement on his decision.
The main grievance involved the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires assessment of potential environmental impacts. The Town deemed the tower exempt from CEQA due to its “small” size, which Keller contested, emphasizing that the tower’s height could increase to 100 feet without further approval.
“The tower will be more than twice as tall as any man-made structure in its vicinity, taller than any tree in the neighborhood, and it will be one of the tallest structures in the entire town,” Keller argued. “This tower is enormous, and if it is enormous, it cannot be small.”
Winterswyk countered that the CEQA exemption defines “small” by floor area, not height, citing the precedent of “Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego,” where a similar tower received a categorical exemption.
Keller differentiated the cases, stating that the San Diego tower was only 35 feet tall and blended into its environment, while the proposed tower would be highly visible from Old Mammoth Road.
By avoiding CEQA evaluation, Keller argued the Town skirted legal concerns about the tower’s safety in winter for nearby residents and the aesthetic impacts on the nearby environment. Keller also raised issues regarding the Town’s Municipal Code and General Plan, drawing into question the Town’s application of its own values and laws.
First, he argued the tower violates a requirement in the Municipal code for a 20-foot setback from the fire station property line and referenced a project layout graph.
Specifically, he said the faux branches of the tower and aspects of the transmission equipment would overreach the boundary, even if the trunk was set back appropriately. The Municipal Code states only plant matter can cross the setback line, so the “violation is plain as day,”
Winterswyk disagreed. She countered, rather, that faux branches could reasonably be construed as plant material, since “the code does not specify that ‘trees and plant material’ must be natural and come up from the ground.” In the benches, some attendees shook their heads in disbelief at this assertion.
She continued that the graph Keller referenced was “not a construction level drawing” and therefore cannot be relied on for evidence, and she assured Judge Mohun that the building and planning process for the tower would keep infrastructure beyond the 20-foot setback.
“I think what is happening is a misread of the plan, and also a misunderstanding of the purpose of these particular plans that petitioners have cited,” she said.
Keller rebutted that if the drawings presented are unreliable, there is no substantial evidence showing the tower complies with setbacks, as the same graph was presented to the Town’s Planning Department for approval.
“If nobody should rely on those drawings, we think it’s significant that the town relied on them,” he said, prompting a laugh from the attendees.
Lastly, he argued the Town was negligent in its application of the General Plan. The Town approved the use-permit for its slated improvements for cell service and emergency response, but Keller argued, “the Town also emphasizes aesthetics, views, and maintaining the character of the town as a village in the trees with small-town charm.”
The tower is inconsistent with the latter values, he said, and therefore not fully compliant with the General plan.
The opposing counsel rebutted that conflicts within the general plan are inevitable. “We aren’t looking for perfection or a sort of checklist of every single policy in the plan and whether the project conformed to it,” Winterswyk said.
Keller sustained his argument for aesthetics and views in his closing argument. He pointed to the full benches in the courtroom, and quoted townspeople’s remarks from public hearings. He claimed that if as many people were upset as they are, there’s surely wrongdoing on the Town’s part.
“We really appreciate you taking the time to get it right,” he said to Judge Mohun, who collected his notes and adjourned the hearing.
