Confused by coverage maps, supervisors agree to consider tree-disguised Bonny Doon cellphone tower and dodge lawsuit

When Santa Cruz County’s planning commission voted to reject a 151-foot cellphone tower disguised like a pine tree in Bonny Doon earlier this year, the land-use panel might have “abused” its discretion powers, county staff said. 

Speaking to the county’s board of supervisors on Tuesday, representatives of CTI Towers, a North Carolina-based company that owns and operates wireless infrastructure throughout the country, took it a step further, arguing that the commission’s Feb. 12 rejection of the camouflaged tower represented a violation of the federal Telecommunications Act and was a “clear and legal error.” 

Despite its tree camouflage, the possibility of a 15-story cell tower moving into the view of redwoods and Douglas firs along Summit Drive has irked its Bonny Doon neighbors for more than three years, since CTI first submitted its application in February 2022. Yet, for AT&T, which would use the tower to boost its wireless service, and the broader rural community aching for better cellphone coverage, the tower represents a welcome improvement of a critical communications service. 

On Tuesday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors agreed to accept CTI’s appeal of the planning commission’s denial and take on the question of the looming, monopine tower once and for all. A final vote on the structure will take place on June 10. 

Central in the question of the tower’s necessity is AT&T’s cellular reception map, and the debate has revealed a surprising contradiction between the maps AT&T uses for marketing the strength of its wireless coverage and the maps it uses when making the case for a new tower. 

A main motivation for the tower is AT&T’s claim that the rural areas surrounding 186 Summit Dr. suffer from a gap in wireless coverage. Yet, the planning commission based much of its rejection on the fact that maps presented on AT&T’s own website show full coverage in the region. 

However, new maps presented by county staff on Tuesday told a different story, with only a sliver of coverage in the area. How could the maps contrast so dramatically? Travis Brooks, an attorney with Miller Starr Regalia, representing CTI Towers, told the supervisors that the AT&T website maps were simply “inaccurate marketing” maps and did not paint a truthful picture. 

“The [planning] commission committed a clear legal error when it substituted its judgment based on inaccurate, high-level mapping from AT&T’s website, which includes disclaimers on the map itself that it does not show all gaps in coverage, in place of AT&T’s industry standard and accepted certification that a significant gap exists,” Brooks said. “I’m confident the courts would conclude this is a legal error.” 

Brooks also argued that the planning commission’s denial violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to clear the path for wireless communication towers in the face of neighborhood objections. Brooks said the neighbors’ argument that the monopine tower interrupted their view would not hold up in state or federal court as a reason to block a tower that provides a necessary utility for a region. 

Tuesday’s discussion was reminiscent of last year’s meetings with AT&T, when the telecommunications company sought to remove itself as California’s official carrier of last resort, which requires it to maintain landline service. The California Public Utilities Commission rejected AT&T’s bid, which would have left many in the Santa Cruz Mountains without reliable phone service. Part of the company’s argument then was that cellphone coverage has become so widespread that expensive landline technology was no longer needed. 

Yet, just over a year later, AT&T was back inside the supervisors’ chambers, making the case that its cellphone coverage had significant gaps and thus required a tower, something that wasn’t lost on the county’s lawmakers. 

“There are maps that say there is coverage, and then maps that say there isn’t coverage,” Supervisor Justin Cummings (District 3) said. “That’s just bad faith in my opinion.” 

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.