- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Supervisors Approve Stricter Cell-Tower Ordinance, But Say No to Moratorium
The issue of cell phone towers — and where to put them — was just as contentious Tuesday as it was when it went before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors last month.
At Tuesday’s meeting, the supervisors heard 20 speakers vent about their side of the matter during the public comment period.
The issue centers on cell company NextG and its plans to place 39 “node” — or antenna — sites throughout the South Coast. An antenna a little taller than 2 feet would be placed at the top of an existing utility pole, and the cables needed for the project would be strung along the telephone wire or trenched underground.
None of NextG’s nodes has been approved by the county, and supervisors have been planning their next move while listening to the public outcry.
Seventeen of Tuesday’s speakers said they favored a moratorium on this type of development, listing everything from health concerns to potential declines in property values.
The Federal Communications Act pre-empts the county from prohibiting the antennas and states that localities can’t “regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effect of radio frequency emissions,” assuming they comply with the threshold deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission.
The county can influence the sites and design of the antennas, although there are limitations on that, too. If challenged by the county, however, the wireless company would have to prove a gap in service and that the proposed antennas would help close it.
But the FCC issued a declaratory ruling Nov. 18, since the board’s last meeting. Local governments are required to act in a reasonable period of time, and just recently the FCC got specific in its ruling. It said that counties would need to process applications in 90 to 150 days, depending on whether another tower is nearby.
It also stated that state or local government can’t deny an application solely because the service is available from another provider.
Tuesday’s speakers also used the ruling as a chance to reaffirm their stance on perceived health effects from radio frequency emissions, and that local governments can’t deny or delay actions on projects based on those perceived risks.
County staff provided some perspective at the hearing and talked about how other communities have dealt with moratoriums. Two years ago, the city of Pasadena enacted a 45-day moratorium for establishing any ground towers in residential areas.
The moratorium was extended twice — a time frame that spanned 22 months. Cell company Omnipoint challenged the city when it denied the company’s application for a facility, and the company won the approval in court.
The cities of Glendale and Agoura Hills also enacted moratoriums, but no litigation is pending.
Also under discussion Tuesday was beefing up the county’s telecommunications ordinance, which was last revised four years ago. Additional notices to residents living nearby the sites and larger setbacks were among ordinance improvements approved unanimously by the board.
Whether to approve a moratorium did not go as smoothly, however. Supervisor Salud Carbajal, who represents many of the vocal Montecito residents who showed up in force to support a moratorium, supported the move.
“I have a 9-year-old, and if one of these facilities was going in my backyard, I would have the same concerns,” he said. “Regrettably, the FCC and federal law undermine some of our authority on the health issues.”
But the other four supervisors did not agree, and Carbajal’s motion died for lack of a second.
Fear of litigation and what might crop up if the company wins in court was a common concern. Supervisor Joe Centeno said he felt that it was legally unsustainable.
“We’re putting the county in a position for a lawsuit. ... I don’t see the benefit of it,” Supervisor Janet Wolf said. “We’re all parents up here ... we care about our children. But what I’m worried about is that by moving forward with a moratorium, we may end up with something worse.”
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 12.02.09 @ 08:01 AM
If you’ve seen any of the news clips of the people protesting these cell sites it is very clear what idiotic luddites they are. For some reason I would expect the residents of Cito to have a little more brain power than the ones protesting exhibit. Maybe it is due to their excessive cell phone use? I heard it rots your brain! Anyways, glad to hear the Supes made the smart and reasonable decision.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 12.02.09 @ 08:37 AM
Scientific ignorance and the handwringing of concerned (without evidence) parents continue to dominate this debate. Do your homework, people, and get the FACTS. The FCC regs were designed to prevent just this kind of nonsense. Have a look at the American Cancer Society website for actual research data.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 12.02.09 @ 08:47 AM
The layers have turned Calif into the biggest whiners in the country—If your not a victum _YOU will be..
TORT reform now—you sue you lose you pay—the Englang—very few lawsuits—
—Get a life people—You sounded like little Babies—
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 12.02.09 @ 01:27 PM
If Montecito residents don’t want towers then I say we tear them all down and give them what they want. It kills me that people will complain about towers citing health risks and yet they will spend 5 hours a day with their cell phone glued to their ear.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 12.02.09 @ 05:44 PM
Interestingly, most of the commentary in response to this and previous articles on the subject indicate a strong level of support for towers (which BTW are not towers at all, they are so-called “nanosites” roughly the size of a small refrigerator and with less than a thousandth the power of an actual tower) and against unnecessary restrictions. So why is the Council being such wimps? Maybe (esp in the case of Carbajal) due to the large number of dollars flowing into the campaign chest from Montecito?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
SBCC Receives But Won’t Release Draft of Findings from State Oversight Commission
The college has 30 days to respond, after which the ACCJC is expected to issue a public decision
County Supervisors Approve First Reading of Oil Pipeline Agreement for Venoco
Next week's public meeting the last step before the company can begin operations
Goleta Seeks Public Input on Law Enforcement Services
Participants are needed for two focus groups scheduled for Feb. 15
City Council Authorizes Design Contract for Redevelopment of Cliff Drive Intersection
Tuesday's meeting is dedicated to Santa Barbara filmmaker Mike deGruy, who died in a helicopter crash; a memorial service is planned for Sunday
Goleta Woman Accused of Having Sex with Teen Boy
Sheriff's Department says victim recently came forward about 2008 relationship
Weather: Fair 50.0º
Search Noozhawk »
