The Carpinteria Architectural Review Board on Oct. 16 deferred further review of a proposed Verizon Wireless rooftop installation at 912 Linden Avenue, citing visual impacts to the downtown clock tower, concerns about the building’s condition and an absence of an adequate alternatives analysis. After lengthy public comment opposing the location, the ARB voted 3–1 to continue the project and asked Verizon to study different site locations and to return with additional materials.

City planner and project planner Brett McNulty summarized a revised proposal prepared after staff review. The application requested a conditional use permit and coastal development permit to mount three rooftop antenna arrays (18 panel antennas in total) and one equipment enclosure on a single‑story retail building that includes the locally prominent Carpinteria clock tower. The applicant’s revised design shortened and stepped some of the proposed screening and changed materials in an attempt to reduce visual prominence; the plan also includes an emergency generator parking spot in the loading area and wiring runs to adjacent electrical service.

Verizon representative Celeste McGinnis explained the revisions and said the company had adjusted the crown and stepped the screening on the tower to reduce apparent height. Designer Sarah Ali said proposed screening panels would be fiberglass‑reinforced panels (FRP) that would be textured and painted to match the tower, and that materials and samples could be provided for review; she said the material choice was intended to be RF-transparent to avoid blocking signals.

Public commentators overwhelmingly opposed placing the antenna arrays near the clock tower. Business owners and long-term residents described the clock tower as an iconic downtown gateway and argued that rooftop screening and wings would still harm the tower’s proportions. Retail tenants at the rear commercial spaces raised structural concerns about placing equipment and ladders on a small accessory rooftop they use for storage and as part of their operations and asked whether Verizon had inspected and tested the structure behind their units.

Board members asked for additional information before final design review: a clear, documented alternatives analysis (locations considered and reasons for rejection), more detail and samples for proposed screening materials and finishes, a structural review that addresses rooftop loading—especially on the smaller accessory rooftop that houses the equipment enclosure and ladders—and a thorough explanation of the historic evaluation that finds the property eligible for historic designation. Staff also requested construction‑level plans showing exact mounting, parapet and parapet‑height relationships so the board could confirm the proposed screen fits without altering historic fabric or blocking existing windows.

After public comment, a board member moved to continue the matter and to ask Verizon to study alternate locations; the motion passed 3–1. The board recorded no immediate approval and directed the applicant to return with the requested studies and material samples before scheduling another preliminary review.