NIMBY—not in my backyard—is an acronym generally used to describe residents who are opposed to new development because it’s close to them, although they more or less believe that it may be somewhat necessary for society.
And while those with pro-development sensibilities may refer to the residents surrounding the area of 4599 Kenneth Ave. in unincorporated Orcutt as NIMBYs, Andrea Ortiz and Edie Kuhr insist that they are not. However, Ortiz and Kuhr do insist that a proposed Verizon cell phone tower not be erected so close to their homes. They say it’ll drive down property values and cause other problems.
A request for a conditional use permit by Verizon Wireless calls for a new 80-foot tower disguised as a eucalyptus tree to be built in an undeveloped 3-acre patch of land that serves as a drainage basin. Verizon wants to build the tower to improve its long-term evolution networks (LTE, otherwise known as 4G) used for cellular phone calls and data streaming.
It may seem like an insignificant piece of land, but some residents value the land for bird watching. Ortiz, who teaches third grade at a local school, and her neighbors have spent hours upon hours researching, collecting evidence, and printing documents looking for ways to fight the proposal. Ortiz considers the land as a sanctuary for wildlife, particularly for migratory birds, and says building a cell tower would effectively ruin that piece of habitat and possibly kill the birds.
Ortiz said owls and other birds of prey utilize two eucalyptus trees (which are non-native species) as roosting sites. She added that Verizon hired a biologist to assess the impact of a tower, but she says it wasn’t adequate. She decided to collect evidence herself and says she found owl pellets and feathers.
“Eucalyptus trees are protected because they are recognized as a place where raptors like to stay,” Ortiz explained. “To put a cell tower there is insane.”
Another species that Ortiz says would be affected by the tower is the California red-legged frog, but so far no official evidence was found of the frog claiming the parcel as a habitat. A Santa Barbara County Planning Commission staff report dated Feb. 19 said the project would have little environmental impact.
Ortiz is seeking help in collecting funds to pay for a biologist to do an independent evaluation. Anyone interested can email her at kenya683@msn.com.
Then there are safety concerns. Even though Ortiz and her neighbors say they can’t use the argument that tower radiation will harm them, Kuhr believes the tower would be too close to her house. The exact proposed location of the tower puts it directly in between the two eucalyptus trees and within yards of Kuhr’s house. Approaching old age, Kuhr thinks the radiation could still affect her.
“We don’t want to move but we know that we’re old and more susceptible to cancer,” Kuhr said.
So far, there’s no evidence to suggest that cell phone towers cause cancer, although “very few” studies have been conducted that specifically focused on cell towers and cancer risk, according to the American Cancer Society.
Residents also fear the cell tower could catch fire. Ortiz points to a July 28 fire at St. Joseph High School where a stadium light pole outfitted with cellular antennas caught fire while workers were conducting welding operations at the site. A tweet by the Santa Barbara County Fire Dispatch’s Twitter account confirms there was a fire at that location on that day.
Ortiz, Kuhr, and others are hopeful that the project won’t go through. They credit county officials for at least considering their concerns. The proposed tower hasn’t gone past the county’s planning commission, which put a 90-day hold on the project at a meeting on July 8 in order to explore an alternative location for the tower.
But if Verizon truly wants the tower at the Kenneth Avenue location, the company can go as far as suing the county to make it happen.
Verizon sued the city of Tauton, Mass., last June after its city council denied a cell tower permit. Using a provision in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1966, Verizon claims local governments could be held liable for shoddy cell coverage if they deny cell towers.
“Denying a carrier the ability to provide full coverage may constitute a ‘prohibition’ of wireless services with respect to the Federal Telecommunications Act limitations,” according to the Feb. 19 county staff report.
The city of Lompoc almost found itself in a similar situation. On Nov. 18, 2014, the City Council denied a citizens’ appeal to build a cell tower in a residential area in the northwest part of the city. During the meeting, Verizon attorney Jay Albritton essentially told the council the city could be held liable if the appeal was approved.
Kuhr, Ortiz, and their neighbors—several dozen in all—say they aren’t afraid of a lawsuit and think the county is taking too long in deciding whether or not to grant Verizon a conditional use permit to build the tower. If the tower gets built, they say they’ll be forced to move.
“That’s all we’re asking for, is to keep our community positive and healthy,” Kuhr said.
Staff Writer David Minsky can be reached at dminsky@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Sep 24 – Oct 1, 2015.