By Jon Chown
Santa Cruz County Supervisors voted Tuesday to approve a 151-foot cellphone tower proposed by AT&T in Bonny Doon. It will be the tallest cell tower allowed in a Santa Cruz County neighborhood.
The original proposal was to construct a 151-foot-tall tower camouflaged as a monopine tree at 186 Summit Drive, that includes nine panel antennas. After the community objected, the tower was passed without the camouflage, due to concerns about plastic.
AT&T’s Marketing Map shows no gaps in coverage surrounding the area of the proposed cell tower.
The tower is extremely controversial and was first considered in 2023. In February, the Planning Commission denied the project, based on the idea that there was no coverage gap, and that a existing cell tower on Patrick Road could be improved.
Many Bonny Doon residents are against the new cell tower. They say it’s not necessary, will damage the environment because it contains microplastics, and will be an eyesore that reduces property values. AT&T’s proponents argued that it’s not only necessary to fill a coverage gap, but it would be unlawful for the county to reject it.
Travis Brooks, an attorney with Miller Starr Regalia, representing CTI Towers, which owns the property the tower would be placed on, told the supervisors on Tuesday that “Even if the county could find a reason to reject the project, under federal law, it could not do so,” he said, pointing to the federal Communications Act of 1996.
Santa Cruz land use attorney Gary Patton, representing Bonny Doon residents, differed.
“Certainly, after what you’ve just heard, it would seem like there is no argument against this, but indeed there is,” Patton said.
He led a well-organized rebuttal to the tower. Bonny Doon’s experts claimed there was not a real gap in coverage and that AT&T was actually breaking the law by providing bad data.
“The problem here is that a 150-foot tower doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood. That’s the problem,” said Rodney Cahill, who lives next door to the proposed tower site.
Central to the debate is the map used to show coverage. According to AT&T, it’s cellular reception map shows a coverage gap and only a new tower would fill it. Local residents, however, say there is no coverage gap and point out that AT&T’s own marketing maps show full coverage in the region. In fact, AT&T had come to the Board of Supervisors early last year to request withdrawing its land lines in the Santa Cruz Mountains because they were costly to maintain, and that no there were coverage gaps in cell phone service. That request was denied.
Many Bonny Doon residents showed up to speak and were relegated just one minute each. Many held signs reading “Please, Oh Please! No Fake Trees!” The neighbors say they have spent more than $80,000 to stop this tower. Some argued that an existing tower at 125 Patrick Road should be expanded.
Matthew Kaufman, who owns the 125 Patrick Road property, rebutted that argument. He explained that his tower was damaged in the CZU fire, and he has not been able to get the permits to repair it properly.
“While I believe our tower is superior, I do agree with AT&T and fully support their tower. Even if AT&T wanted to use our tower, they would face the same problems,” he said.
Justin Cummings, pointed out AT&T’s varying storylines, including when they said there was full coverage just last year, and that they said Kauffman had denied them the use of his tower, which was not true.
“Based on that, I think we need to consider who we support today,” he said, while also questioning the CEQA process.
“Residents have brought bags of this plastic that has fallen off these towers,” he said. “I can’t believe there is no potential for this to break down into microplastics…. We should not be supporting that.”
Cummings moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial, but his motion did not get a second.
Immediately after that failed, Supervisor Manu Koenig asked if the county could just approve the tower if it were to be made out of metal and painted green, as if the plastic issue was the main problem.
“If this was a question of kids vs. suits, I’d vote kids all day long,” he said, but said he was concerned about federal law. “If we were just to reject this tower, the county will be in a lawsuit and based on my understanding of the law, the tower will be built in the same place.”
Moncia Martinez (District 5) seconded that motion, telling disappointed residents “I listened intently, and I heard every single one of your concerns.”
“We need to represent the people,” Cummings pleaded to his fellow supervisors before the vote. “Let the courts decide.”
The motion passed on a 4-1 vote with Cummings against.