On Oct. 25, the planning commission approved a plan that would allow for installation of a 65-foot monopole—disguised as a church tower with a cross on top—on the church property to provide better cell phone service to AT&T customers in the area and to neighboring Highway 85.

The tower would also have an equipment shed near its base to handle the operation equipment of the antenna. Before approving the tower, the commission pared the tower's height down to 60 feet, still 5 feet taller than an existing 55-foot tower at the church and far higher than the one-story preschool it would stand over.

The church already has a similar 55-foot tower on the property, next to the main 34-foot-tall sanctuary building.

AT&T's installation plans were put on hold—at least temporarily—when the

council approved an appeal by 54 of the church's neighboring households to deny the application. As part of the motion, the council said it would be open to another attempt if more research was done to consider alternate sites—including power poles on the other side of the highway or light poles at Cupertino Middle School—and there was greater cooperation in the neighborhood.

One of the few residents who spoke in favor of the tower is a member of the church, and he suggested that some of the residents who appealed the planning commission's decision "hate the cross," and that the appeal was infringing on the church's right to demonstrate faith.

The church also expressed its interest in money it would receive from AT&T. The Rev. Robert McKee, the church's pastor, said the money would be used to fund charity work and improvements to the property.

"One of the things about Lutherans is that we love crosses. We've got seven on our property," Graham said.

Councilman Fred Fowler reacted to Graham's comments by saying that nothing good would come from dividing the community into "us and them."

Several other members of the audience shared Fowler's feelings, including Robert Given, who filed the appeal.

"If they want to have a cross there, that's fine, but let's leave the tower out of it," he said. "They say the pole is stealthed, but there's no stealthing a 60-foot tower."

The height of the tower bothered a number of the residents at the meeting, including Chris Rosenthal, who can clearly see the existing tower from his backyard, and said a new tower would block his southwest view even more. The new tower would stand out even more because it would stand away from the tall sanctuary building and tower already on the property. It has to be located away from those structures to make room for the equipment shed below it and to comply with city codes for setback—the distance a structure has to be from neighboring properties.

Rosenthal—like many others—said he was more than willing to work with the church and AT&T to find a "win-win" solution to the problem.

"I think it's great that the council gave the issue a chance to be discussed further. I'm glad that the church is not necessarily going to be denied their funding and the neighborhood is not going to be changed from the way it was when I moved in," Rosenthal said.

Many of those present at the meeting shared Rosenthal's feelings, saying that they wanted to help the church—which they all called a good neighbor—while maintaining the beauty and integrity of their community.

"I frankly don't want the tower practically in my backyard, and I'd like to be able to work something out with the church because they're good neighbors," said resident Curtis Brown.

Council had a number of problems with the tower plan. Among them was the possibility of an installation on the Cupertino Middle School campus—which would have brought additional revenue to the school from AT&T. There are also high-tension power poles on the other side of Highway 85 that would could be used. Because AT&T would be using existing poles, senior planner Diana O'Dell said the setback rules don't apply and placement would be at city staff's discretion.

Mayor John Howe also suggested the church look again at installing the antenna in the existing tower on the property and running longer cables to connect the tower to the equipment shed.

Sunnyvale Director of Community Development Robert Paternoster said this would also be beneficial for the city because according to city policy, if a telecommunications tower becomes obsolete and unused, it must be removed. This could be a costly process. He also said that if the antenna were just a part of the existing tower, the city would only need to remove the antenna portion, not the entire tower.

AT&T representative Howard Yee—who said he had never lost an appeal like this—said the telecommunications company would have to look at the other options and come back with a new plan.

"Overall, good things will come of this. Neighbors are talking and we may come up with a better possibility than what we had before," McKee said.