7/11/2005
S.B. both a model, a mess for cell towers
By SARAH GORDON NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
Just watch the foot or car traffic in any busy area, and you will
see how attached Santa Barbarans are to their cell phones. But Santa
Barbarans have a distinctly less cozy relationship with the towers and
antennas that make the devices work.
While federal law ultimately trumps in matters of where cell phone
towers can go, static from local officials and residents fearing both for
their health and their property values has stymied installations from
Hope Ranch to Tuckers Grove to Summerland.
Goletas long-running struggle to write a new telecommunications
ordinance suggests how hamstrung local governments feel about diluted
powers to regulate cell towers in their communities.
Some see this areas oversight of new cell towers and antennas as a
model. Here, they say, local government balances the companies and
customers needs with the regions concerns about aesthetics and safety.
Rob Benson, a partner in the consulting group the Cell Site Landowners
Association, said a number of municipalities across the nation are lax
compared with places such as Santa Barbara County, which has a
telecommunications ordinance that imposes strict aesthetic requirements on
cell towers.
In most cities, carriers could do a much better job hiding the sites,
he said. They generally are not pressed to do it.
While some commend Santa Barbara for its model regulations, champions
of effective cell phone networks say building new towers here can be a
nightmare for providers, with homeowners associations that fight every
major installation, and government officials who do not understand the
technologys requirements. They say all this limits the quality of cell
phone coverage in the area.
There are several cases in the county where the provider went through
a careful permitting process, and the Planning Commission turned it down at
the last minute, said Andy Seybold, a Santa Barbara telecommunications
technology consultant who says he is on a crusade to make the area more
amenable to the construction needs of cell phone networks.
A stalled proposal to erect an antenna near an existing one in Tuckers
Grove illustrates his fears.
Verizon officials hoped to hide one dummy tree among the parks lush
forest. County planners embraced their idea, agreeing that a fake tree
hiding a cell antenna was preferable to a stark, undisguised pole such as
the 50-foot one that Sprint already had installed in the southwest corner
of the park.
Verizon expected the plan to go through. It had worked through many
versions of the project with county planners, and staff recommended that
the Planning Commission approve the proposal.
So the company was surprised at a June meeting when the commission
rejected the proposal 3-2, with one commissioner changing his mind to a nay
vote in the course of the meeting.
Weve gone to great lengths to make sure the site design is the best
it can be, Verizon spokeswoman Heidi Flato said.
But the Planning Commission had questions.
I raised the concern whether Tuckers Grove was the right place to
site antennas, Commissioner Michael Cooney said. If you go to the park,
doesnt it seem like you should be sitting under real trees?
Peter Mausharder, the manager of real estate for Verizon, said the
company is writing a report to explain its need for the project more
clearly to the Planning Commission. Were judged by the dependability of
our network, he said. We have to make these things happen.
LAWS FEDERAL AND LOCAL
Federal law says local governments must allow cell antennas in every
zone, be it residential, recreational or commercial. If the company can
prove it needs the site to provide solid coverage, under the law, it can
build there, with few exceptions.
There is very little that we can do to regulate the cell phone towers,
but we do have design review, Santa Barbara city Planner Bettie Weiss
said. That is an area the feds have not pre-empted.
City and county planners say few cell phone antenna projects actually
spark debate the way the Tuckers Grove project did.
We do things to nudge the providers into areas that make sense for
them, said Luis Perez, energy specialist for the countys Planning Division.
The main technique the county and the city use for nudging is making it
far easier for companies to get a permit to add an antenna onto an existing
structure than to build a new, freestanding tower. Companies co-locate
their antenna with an existing one put up by a rival whenever possible.
Where there is a tall building, antennas can go on top, often hidden
inside of inconspicuous boxes. Francisco Torres, a UCSB dormitory in Isla
Vista, hosts antennas from every major provider.
A nondescript three-story office building on Goletas Hollister Avenue
is another hot spot. So is Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.
The bell tower at La Cumbre Plazas Robinsons-May department store has
antennas hidden behind its walls.
But cell phone providers want to send their signals everywhere, and
where there are no tall buildings to assist, they generally must put up a
tall, free-standing pole.
Mr. Perez says the county has gotten better about demanding that cell
phone companies hide those antennas.
For example, an antenna above the county transfer station that slashes
into the sky and cuts an ugly silhouette above Goleta would never get built
under todays requirements, Mr. Perez said. The countys ordinance adopted
in 2002 prevents companies from building on a hilltop.
Weve gotten smarter, he said.
Instead, a tall pole on a hill must be set so that its top is below the
ridge line and painted to match the landscape, he said. Examples stand in
the hills by Refugio Road.
And if poles must sit near a residential zone, the county demands
clandestine designs, Mr. Perez said. Witness the flagpoles by the polo
fields, the tall poll surrounded by trees at the Sheffield exit in
Montecito, the rustic yet odd-looking light standards on Las Positas Drive,
the steeple on the Coast Community Church of the Nazarene.
The Santa Barbara ordinance provides incentives for providers to come
up with creative or good designs, said Adriane Patnaud, site development
manager with Infanext, a company that helps negotiate cell phone sites for
carriers.
Good designs are also vital in convincing owners of private land to
lease it to a cell provider.
Cellular companies meet particular challenges in trying to site towers
in residential neighborhoods. Among other worries, residents have concerns
about an ugly pole lowering property values.
A favorite method of locating cell phone towers near residential zones
is to hide them in church steeples.
The Korean United Methodist Church in Isla Vista agreed to have
Cingular build a 50-foot steeple on top of the church with an antenna
inside in return for a monthly lease.
Pastor Chiyoung Jeong declined to disclose how much money the
congregation gets from the lease, but he said they and the community
supported the project.
The steeple matches with our church and looks nice, he said. There
wasnt a single objection from the congregation or the community.
Community objection in Santa Barbara often slows projects, and it has
had mixed success in stopping or reversing some of them.
In the summer of 2003, the Montecito Association took an official
stance against a Cingular proposal to affix six panel antennas to the
existing Verizon switching station on Santa Angela Lane, less than 100 feet
from several houses.
Association President JAmy Brown said residents were worried primarily
about the potential health effects from the tower, and secondarily about it
hurting the value of their homes.
HEALTH EFFECTS
No scientific research has ever shown a clear relationship between cell
towers and human health, and most physical scientists doubt that the low
levels of radio frequency radiation the towers emit could pose any risk.
But some studies suggest that low levels of radio frequency radiation
can interfere with biological systems, causing changes in molecular
interactions. These studies have caused some scientists to suspect that
radiation from cell towers, and cell phones, could influence essential
parts of the human body, including the brain, nerves and DNA.
The World Health Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency
have both issued past statements calling for further studies to assess the
risk if any from low-level radio-frequency radiation.
Montecito residents did not want to wait for the results of such
studies. But under federal law, local government is not allowed to consider
health fears. The 1996 Telecommunications Act says that as long as antennas
emit radiation at lower levels than the maximum level allowed by the
Federal Communications Commission, local government likewise must deem them
safe.
As a community, we had concerns. We tried
to voice those concerns, but it was
truly out of our hands, Ms. Brown said.
Although the project was stalled, with one resident appealing the
Montecito Planning Commissions approval to the county Board of
Supervisors, Cingular was ultimately granted a permit for the antennas.
However, that same resident is appealing the decision once more, on new
grounds, and the antennas have not yet been built.
Mr. Seybold said this kind of delay is ridiculous and typical of Santa
Barbara.
If youre more than six feet away, theres no danger whatsoever, he
said. Youve got to make the health issue go away.
It is unlikely it will.
The Goleta City Council is considering health concerns as it drafts its
first telecommunications ordinance.
Do we want to require companies to disguise (antennas), or do we want
people to know theyre there? Councilwomen Margaret Connell asked. Maybe
we make them conspicuous so people can avoid them if they want to.
The council is also considering requiring clear signs informing people
when they are near a cell site.
In 2000, the Hope Ranch Association voted against allowing residents to
lease private property to cell phone providers after neighbors concerned
about the safety and the aesthetics of a proposed 60-foot antenna
threatened to sue if the project were approved.
As much as we wanted to improve the spotty coverage in Hope Ranch, the
board decided that if the neighbors were worried that the antenna wasnt
safe, it had to vote against it, association manager Jim Trebbin said.
Instead, the association decided to wait for technology to change to
suit their neighborhood. Sure enough, a few years later, a company proposed
a plan they could live with.
Northern California-based NextG is installing a series of approximately
30 small antennas on existing utility poles in the upscale neighborhood.
Normally, an antenna needs to stand by an accompanying base station full of
computer and electronic-signal processing equipment. But the antennas in
Hope Ranch will be connected by fiber-optic cables that carry the signals
back and forth to one remote base station. NextG is in the process of
courting other cell phone providers to use the network when it is finished.
Hope Ranch had the type of dilemma that Im seeing all around the
country, NextG spokeswoman Norene Luker said. They desperately want to
improve coverage, but they dont like the aesthetics. This technology wont
replace the monopole, but it was ideal for Hope Ranch.
In 2001, the Summerland-Carpinteria Fire District sued Nextel, saying
the company had erected towers at stations in Carpinteria and Summerland
without disclosing their potential health risks. Some firefighters
complained that flagpole antennas were located too close, zapping their
sleeping quarters and causing lethargy and headaches.
A federal judge threw out the suit, ruling that federal law barred
lawsuits based on health concerns about FCC-approved towers.
We were really surprised that we had no local jurisdiction over this,
Chief Tom Martinez said.
However, in 2002, Nextel settled the suit, which the district had
appealed. It agreed to relocate the towers farther away from firefighters
sleeping quarters.
I venture to say they bent over backwards to make everyone happy.
Chief Martinez said. I would have to say everybody came out a winner.
PRE-APPROVED SITES
Some have said local and county government should pre-approve certain
sites for cell towers that would have little impact on residents. Cell
phone providers could then locate there with fewer hassles and permitting
hang-ups.
Mr. Benson, whose consulting business specializes in helping landowners
make money from cell phone tower leases, suggests another benefit from
pre-approving sites.
In many cases, a municipality might want to make a preferred site on
their own property, he said. Then it can collect the revenue, instead of
a private owner.
Goleta Mayor Jean Blois thought that was an intriguing proposition.
It is kind of an interesting source of revenue, with no maintenance
costs, she said.
However, the mayor said it will be a while before Goleta endorses any
particular policy. While she favors a policy of encouraging providers to
locate towers alongside Highway 101, she said filling in all the details of
telecommunications ordinance has been a challenge for her and the council.
The feds lay down certain rules, but they dont leave us many
guidelines for how to follow them, she said.
Its pretty confusing.
