LAKEPORT — The Lake County Board of Supervisors directed staff Tuesday to draft changes to county regulations pertaining to wireless communications facilities that include statements of “preferred” tower locations, requirements for new, “small cell” wireless facilities, and stricter setback requirements.
Changes to the county’s Article 71, which governs the placement of telecommunications structures, are still pending finalization and approval, but multiple supervisors indicated Tuesday they want stronger regulations in place to guide tower development in Lake County.
“Strong as we can make it,” said District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon of how he’d like to amend the law. “Hopefully (telecommunications companies) will get the message that if you’re going to come in, find a position that we’re willing to support.”
A proposed cell tower development in Simon’s district was recently knocked down by the Lake County Planning Commission. The developer has since submitted an appeal to that decision, forcing a board of supervisors hearing for which a date has yet to be set. Any rule changes the board may make prior to that appeal hearing will not be factored into the discussion, said County Counsel Anita Grant.
The county is limited by federal law—notably the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a recent Federal Communications Commission ruling—against some kinds of regulation of cell facilities.
Recognizing such limitations, District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown, who called for amendments to Article 71 to be brought before the board, said the set of potential changes presented Tuesday by county staff “doesn’t come close to what I was hoping for.” Brown noted that he would like to push the requirements for cell tower placement further, but “I don’t know how to accomplish that.”
“I’m happy to get what we can legally without putting up a big expensive legal fight,” Brown said.
Simon and District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier expressed similar sentiments.
Among the recommended changes to Article 71 are specific aesthetic guidelines for new, “small cell” telecommunications facilities, which are expected to begin popping up with increased frequency as cell companies roll out next-generation 5G data service.
Also requested by the board is the expansion of setback requirements for cell towers from neighboring property lines and buildings. Counsel Grant noted that because a “public safety issue”—meaning the danger of cell towers falling to the ground—can be argued in favor of such setback requirements, the county will be in a strong position to enforce such regulations.
Many of the other recommended changes—which will largely be made up of a set of “preferred” locations for cell towers—will lack that level of force.
Stating the county’s preferences on where cell towers should go “will not effectively prohibit a siting,” said Grant. “But it certainly would streamline the location of a tower in a preferred site as opposed to one that’s not preferred. Time being money for cell companies, that may be very attractive to them.”
