Fire risks and property values are two reasons to hold off on streamlining the permitting process for small wireless telecommunication facilities in Santa Barbara County, according to Lesley Weinstock.
The physician’s assistant spoke during the Jan. 7 county Board of Supervisors meeting alongside a handful of other Safe Technology for Santa Barbara members who questioned the county Planning Commission’s December decision to make changes to the county’s cell phone tower rules.
Weinstock said the tweaks would lead to “unregulated ministerial, aka rubber-stamped, wireless facility permits” and the proliferation of cellphone towers while taking away residents’ opportunity to be notified about proposed small wireless facilities near them, to attend public hearings about the projects, and to oppose and appeal them. Fellow speaker Anne-Odile Thomas said the Planning Commission approved the amendments prematurely.
“I urge you to pause,” she said. “This ordinance is not protective to the residents of Santa Barbara County and is very industry protective.”Â
She asked that supervisors take the time to sit down with residents to review the ordinance and make it protective for locals while “adhering to … federal laws.”Â
On Dec. 4, the county Planning Commission approved telecommunications ordinance changes alongside other minor land use changes and compliance with Senate Bill 9, which streamlines certain types of housing development. That package is expected to go before the Board of Supervisors for final approval.Â
Aiming to bring the county’s Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance in line with new federal rules for small wireless telecommunication facilities, staff told the Planning Commission that the county didn’t have much discretion when it comes to the changes it’s required to make to the permitting process for small cell towers.Â
“It is not noticed, and it is not appealable, and that limits the very limited discretion that planning staff has as well as the tight shot-clock that we have to work with,” Long Range Planning Division Manager Alex Tuttle said to the commission on Dec. 4. “It was an attempt to streamline the process to align with the framework within which we have to process these applications.”Â
Small wireless facilities have antennas that are a maximum of 3 cubic feet, mounted on structures that are 50 feet tall or shorter or no more than 10 percent taller than neighboring structures, or mounted on existing or replacement utility poles. With the proposed changes, the facilities would be approved ministerially—meaning no public hearings, no appeals, and no public notices.Â
Planning commissioners pushed back on both the lack of notices and the lack of public comment for small cell tower projects. Commissioner Roy Reed from the 4th District said he was uncomfortable with the changes, as the county generally receives a lot of public comments on cellphone towers.Â
“We’ve had abundant comment in a lot of areas, particularly about public safety, that local governments like us are prohibited from acting upon based on the FCC regulations around that,” Reed said. “I’m not quite comfortable with removing the public’s ability to make comments on these sites.”Â
Putting a placard up at the site of a future small telecommunications facility site could be a compromise, Director of Planning and Development Lisa Plowman said. It would tell residents what’s happening at that place and enable people to submit something in writing to the county.Â
“It allows us to conform to what the FCC is requiring and still allows us to notify people as to what is happening,” Plowman said.
The Planning Commission approved the changes to the telecommunications ordinance with that recommendation, which will go before supervisors in early 2025.
This article appears in Jan 9-19, 2025.