Local residents need more local authority when it comes to approving cell towers in neighborhoods, not less, Janet del’Giudice wrote to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission in a public comment letter.
“I and thousands of people like me oppose installations of unneeded, overpowered cell towers, often without proper notification to occupants and without proof of a significant gap in cellphone service,” the Santa Barbara County resident wrote. “Do not give a free pass to the telecom industry at the expense of our property values, fire risks, privacy, carbon footprint, health, safety, and the quiet enjoyment of our streets.”
Del’Giudice and several other residents came forward with cell tower concerns as the Planning Commission’s Dec. 4 hearing looked to amend the county’s permitting process for telecommunication towers to be more in line with federal regulations.
The Federal Communications Commission requires that cell towers have a more expedited and streamlined process to garner approval for construction, and as a result, staff proposed an easier permitting process for the towers that would eliminate the public noticing and appeals process.
“They [telecommunication projects] would still require permits, but what you did hear is the difference is it is not noticed and not appealable, and this affects the very limited discretion planning staff has in processing applications,” Long Range Planning Deputy Director Alex Tuttle said. “We do see a number of appeals of telecommunication facilities where we have very limited jurisdiction such as [radio frequency] emissions. It was to streamline the process.”
After a two-hour discussion, commissioners decided to propose changes that would provide “a robust system of public announcement and posting relative to telecommunication projects that allow ample time to provide written comment to the planning department prior to any approvals,” 4th District Commissioner Roy Reed said.
He made the motion to approve, which passed unanimously. The changes will still go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. However, Reed wasn’t comfortable limiting people’s ability to voice their concerns.
The inland zone, where Reed’s North County district sits, would have a less-restrictive permit than that of the coastal zone—where regulations tend to be stricter. The inland permits would eliminate noticing and public comment entirely, while the coastal neighbors could still provide some input.
“Knowing that people in the inland zone do not have the same opportunity to comment on these facilities makes passing this … even less attractive because I don’t like to create two classes of people,” Reed said. “I think people in the inland zone should have the opportunity to comment as they do in the coastal zone.”
Planning and Development Director Lisa Plowman told Reed that it’s common for the coastal zone to have stricter permits than the inland zone because of state regulations around coastal areas.
“I would say it’s not uncommon, and we’ll continue to see those kinds of differences between the inland area and coastal zone,” she said.
“I think after sitting here for a year, we are all well familiar that the coastal zone has different opportunities and requirements than the inland zone,” Reed responded. “But I’m a little concerned with people … who have always had the opportunity to comment on these suddenly feeling cut off while their neighbor still has the right to exercise their free speech.”
This article appears in Dec 12-22, 2024.