Supes to consider wireless antenna moratorium

By COLBY FRAZIER — Nov. 30, 2009

In response to a flurry of recent applications from telecommunications companies seeking to install dozens of wireless communication antennas across the South Coast, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will consider adopting a moratorium on such infrastructure until the county’s permitting process can be updated.

The possible moratorium was sparked earlier this year when the telecommunications company, NextG Networks, sought permits to install 39 antennae systems across the South Coast. The type of antennas proposed fall under the county’s Tier 1 permit level, and therefore require minimal public review.

According to a board agenda letter prepared for the meeting, the board could consider adopting a moratorium for up to two years, though some California cities cited in the report took far less time updating their respective permitting processes. A moratorium could also spark litigation, which other jurisdictions have faced after halting the permit process.

If a moratorium is indeed adopted, and the board opts to update its permitting process, some of the areas that could be changed include requiring additional public noticing for neighbors when new telecommunications facilities are proposed, mandating public hearings on Tier 1 projects and prohibition of cell sites near schools, daycares and other sensitive sites.

The proposal by NextG Networks, a new wireless operator in the county, would put 39, 26-inch antennas atop existing utility poles from Summerland to Goleta. Equipment boxes would also be attached to the poles and additional fiber optic cables would be installed.

While studies conducted by the company show the antennae’s radiofrequency emissions at ground level fall within acceptable standards, as dictated by the Federal Communications Commission, some fear radiation from the antennas could be harmful.

But along with health-related issues, some residents fear the proliferation of cell phone antennas in residential neighborhoods could devalue property and put a pockmark on neighborhoods.

Brian Trautwein, who lives near the site of a proposed antennae in the 100 block of Old Mill Rd., wrote in a public comment letter that he felt the antennas would degrade his quality of life. He also said he doesn’t feel the antennas aren’t compatible with the residential neighborhoods that many could pop up in.

“Aesthetics, ambiance and neighborhood compatibility – I don’t want my neighborhood becoming more industrialized through high-tech installations,” he wrote. “What is next? The proposed facilities adversely affect neighborhood aesthetics in terms of the feel of the neighborhood. It is an incompatible land use in a residential area.”

Trautwein also raised concerns about the health risks associated with radiation from the antennas, which he said could affect the central nervous system, immune system and have metabolic effects.

In another public comment letter, Louise McKaig raised concerns about the impact the antennas could have on property values. She said many of the proposed antennas are located on private property, and if installed, would become disclosure issues if the property were sold.

“When there is so much county land around us in the 2nd District, the fact there already exists two of more large cell installations, all on county land, it does not make sense to pick private property to install this site against the property owner’s will,” McKaig wrote.

The Board of Supervisors meeting starts at 9 a.m. on the fourth floor of the county administration building at 105 E. Anapamu St. The meeting streams live at www.countyofsb.org, and is also shown on channel 20.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

cell madness : 11/30/2009

"Trautwein also raised concerns about the health risks associated with radiation from the antennas, which he said could affect the central nervous system, immune system and have metabolic effects."
Based upon WHAT Dr. Trautwein. Geez this hysteria is reaching a fever pitch.

luddites unite

---

Antennas versus antennaes : 12/1/2009

Come on folks, if you are going to report on something, spell it right. Antennaes are things that grow on insects. Antennas are what all cell phones have in order to work.

M.L. VanBlaricum

---

cell coverage stinks! : 12/1/2009

I agree with "cell madness". This is a NIMBY/Luddite approach to slapping down needed infrastructure. Cell phone service in many parts of the coast is terrible and certainly slow. I, for one, am near to several of the towers and am excited for the increase in service and competition to Verizon with their sub-par customer service.
The 'aesthetics' arguement just doesn't hold any water...these are smallish devices that will go on top of existing powerlines. You won't even notice they put anything up.
Dan

Dan

---

Stupid Supes : 12/1/2009

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gives California a bad reputation for spending public dollars fighting common-sense ideas. Hey Supes, I am paying your salaries: Spend your time on something important! If you don't California will grow still more anachronistic and be the political laughingstock of the nation.

David

---

: 12/1/2009

Its' pointless to argue about the supposed health effects. The federal government has preempted and prevented local governments from regulating telecommunication facilities on the basis of perceived health impacts because they new that wireless carriers would face localized opposition and the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that there aren't any health risks associated with the facilities.
The proposed projects sound exactly like they are exactly what the County designed it's current ordinance to encourage: small, discrete facilities with minimal visual impacts. On the subject of moratorium, I think the County would be in a poor position if they were sued. Factors in favor of a city imposing a moratorium include 1) not having an existing wireless ordinance (the County has one). 2) Not having time to adjust to the volume of applications (The County has been processing wireless applications regularly since at least 1994.
Additionally, there is hardly ANY work out there and is it really the time to ban development? Brian Trautwein in my mind does not constitute the average citizen. The average citizen carries a cell phone and uses it frequently. These facilities will facilitate reliable communications and I think it's close minded and irresponsible to impose a ban.

Steve in SB

---

black holes need repairs : 12/1/2009

There are lots of areas along Cathedral Oaks/Foothill and in enclaves like Hidden Valley which are in "black holes" for cell phone reception. The sooner we fix 'em the better!

BegToDiffer

---