The Taos County Commission Chambers was packed with residents from across the county Thursday (July 31) for a planning commission meeting and public hearing over an application for a special use permit to construct a 195-foot cell tower.
The tower, which would be constructed on private property along NM 522 in San Cristobal, brought 46 residents to the chambers.
Thirty-six neighbors shared their opposition to the cell tower, and 10 spoke in support before commission board members rendered a vote. Four commissioners approved the measure, while Commissioner Rick Edelman recused himself.
The planning commission stipulated a sky-blue/gray lattice design instead of the original fake-tree camouflage that residents felt would not match the surrounding vegetation.
Pro-cell tower
Members of the public testified on both sides of the issue, expressing mixed feelings. Some said they don't want a cell tower more than twice the size of the next largest tower in the county obstructing the view of their idyllic valley and diminishing their property values, but indicated a need for better emergency response communications.
"I share my neighbors' concerns about visual impact, about the possibilities of changing the character of our community," said San Cristobal Fire Chief Steven Pace, who spoke in support of the tower. "As the fire chief however, I have to be thinking of what's going to serve the community as a whole better.
"We have a vast geographic area to cover,” Pace said. “I've been on dozens of calls in my district where the lack of solid cell signal has caused people to drive miles from the scene of an incident or leave their home and their injured party to make a call to dispatch.”
Many commenters including Pace welcomed any alternatives that might be less visually obtrusive.
Others in support of the tower shared a vision of more robust disaster communication capacity, with additional presumed opportunities for telemedicine equity, virtual education and overall better cell phone coverage in the valley.
"I have lived in San Cristobal all my life, and the very site where this tower is proposed to be built was the homestead by my great-grandfather in the 1860s under the Homestead Act," said Alfred Cordova, one of the property owners where the tower is proposed to be built. "The reason that we agreed for a tower to be constructed so close to our residence is because we see the need. We saw the need in the fire of '96. We didn't have [proper] communication.
"San Cristobal is a very unique community because it's surrounded by forest, but that makes it that much more vulnerable to fires. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."
No cell tower
Those opposed to the cell tower referenced a common desire among San Cristobal residents to live in an area that is disconnected and more peaceful because of it. Homesteaders, farmers, people with EMF sensitivities and landowners said they chose San Cristobal for its rural way of life, asserting they had adequate cell coverage or internet service to meet their needs and were more concerned about diminishing property values.
"Once that tower goes up, we can't take it back," Charles Ross, a San Cristobal landowner said, "Let's find smarter, less invasive ways to stay connected without disconnecting from what makes this place so special."
Some commenters suggested using a mixture of satellite antennas or cell tower boosters to increase signal without building a tower.
Ryan Shaver, an attorney representing Skyway Towers, the applicant, presented the tower as a necessary improvement to telecommunications and emergency response capabilities in the region.
Edelman pushed back against the representative, questioning the firm's "good faith efforts" to find the location with least intrusive impact. He deduced the reason the tower was 195 feett tall was to reach high enough above the rim of the valley “bowl” to get service from the property where it will be constructed.
"If a shorter tower is more pleasing to the neighbors, T-Mobile should be able to go towards ameliorating the aggravation," Edelman said. "To call this thing unobtrusive is stretching. In my opinion, it's intrusive, and my problem is that I don't understand why someone must have put a tall tower in a low spot in a bowl. There are ridges on the sides, and to contact seven people and two people not even respond? I think if you went back there and people realized that the tower is needed and was going to happen, and more people were contacted, we'd have a better result."
Board member Ted Terry had concerns regarding a Department of the Interior environmental impact report in which they "do not provide concurrence with the project proponents, no effect determinations."
"So, in what I can glean from this is that you [Skyway Towers] have informed the Department of Interior that there would be no effect on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, and they did not agree with you," Commissioner Terry said.
Skyway Towers' legal representation had a different interpretation.
"My opinion is that the interpreter is simply stating that it is not within their role to apply on that particular subject ... with the department finding no critical species, no impact upon critical species habitats," Shaver said.
The feds
A representative from the county's rural addressing division described the federally mandated transition of 911 services to Next Generation 911, explaining that 911 response systems were previously based on zip codes but are now reliant on a new IP-based system that goes straight from cell phones to dispatch.
Opponents testified that satellite communications are the future of emergency communications, not cell phones.
However, the rural addressing department said there are no alternatives to emergency communications as efficient and as resilient as cell towers. In case of destruction, the tower is designed to crumble onto itself, not topple over; and in the case of electricity failure, backup generators will ensure effective operating capacity.
Ultimately, Shaver referenced a subsection of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that preserves the authority of state and local governments to make decisions. But the act also limits them, he said, because it prohibits the denial of personal wireless services; Shaver asserted that denying the special use permit would not stand up in court due to this FCC regulation.
One public commenter and San Cristobal landowner also pointed out legal limitations stated in the Taos County Land Use Regulations that requires a 5-mile separation between freestanding cell towers. A recently approved 95-foot-tall cell tower in Arroyo Hondo is within that 5-mile range, although residents plan to appeal that decision to the Taos County Commission.
"We are so disappointed in the planning commission's overt disregard of a community uniting against a project," said Mandy Sackett, a landowner in San Cristobal. "By opposing the tower, we are pushing our county to plan better and place infrastructure in places where it will have the least impact."
San Cristobal residents are meeting with an attorney and plan to appeal the approval of the San Cristobal tower to the Taos County Commission.
Other permit approvals
The planning commission approved a special use permit for Chevron Environmental Management Company to replace a 90-foot-tall cell tower in Questa, which is mainly being used by the Questa Mine, with one that is 140 feet tall to upgrade the radio tower from analog to digital.
Additionally, a permit for a new yoga, meditation and wellness retreat in Arroyo Hondo was approved with minimal discussion regarding necessary additional permitting if the owner wishes to utilize the space as a short-term rental in the future.
