Supervisors delay decision on Paradise Valley wireless tower after residents raise safety, fairness concerns

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on June 25 to continue an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility on Paradise Valley Road in Spring Valley and directed staff to return with additional environmental analysis and any other information the board requests.

The project, proposed by AT&T and developed by consultant MD7, would place a 35-foot faux-eucalyptus wireless tower and an eight-foot-tall concrete equipment enclosure on a parcel owned by the San Diego County Water Authority. County planning staff had recommended that the board deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval; staff said the project qualified for a categorical CEQA exemption and complied with county zoning standards.

County planner Kathleen Fan, presenting the item for Planning and Development Services, said the site is constrained by an aqueduct easement and existing Water Authority uses and that the proposed facility meets the county’s non-small-cell standards. “The exemption was properly applied, and no further environmental review is required,” Fan said in explaining staff’s recommendation.

AT&T representative John Heffernan and MD7 representatives Antoinette Ocampo and Brian Mackey told the board the site was chosen after evaluating alternatives, and that the design and siting had been adjusted to reduce visual and siting impacts. Mackey said the project would benefit “more than 8,900 customers” and improve coverage along State Route 125, which carries roughly 66,000 daily trips.

Residents of the nearby Sweetwater Hills townhomes led the appeal and told the board the siting is too close to homes and a daycare. “We are being told to accept a big 35-foot faux eucalyptus tower with a diesel generator and electrical equipment directly across from homes and a daycare,” appellant Maggie Winterton said. Winterton said residents crowd-funded the appeal and noted the nearest homes are roughly 60 feet from the proposed equipment.

Neighbor Gerardo (last name on file) raised fire- and water-safety concerns, saying the project included a diesel generator and that the site would be surrounded by combustible landscaping such as manzanita. “If a fire occurred nearby or the tower itself causes a fire, it’s our homes,” he said, and he expressed concern about firefighting chemicals contaminating the Sweetwater Aqueduct and reservoir downhill from the site.

Appellants also questioned the sufficiency of AT&T’s coverage justification, saying the carrier relied on predictive maps rather than ‘‘real-world’’ drive tests. Planning staff told the board that predictive models are industry-standard and sufficient under county zoning rules.

Several supervisors said they were troubled by the regulatory inconsistency that treats small-cell facilities differently from larger, non-small-cell facilities. Supervisor Jim Desmond, defending the staff recommendation, noted federal limits on regulation of radio-frequency emissions but asked why small cells have a 300-foot setback while non-small-cell facilities are subject to a 50-foot minimum property-line setback. County planning staff explained the 300-foot setback was adopted as part of a later small-cell ordinance and that the 50-foot minimum remains in county code for larger facilities.

Supervisor [name recorded as] Montgomery voiced concern about making a final decision without a district representative for District 1 in place and said she preferred additional review and time for the newly seated supervisor to weigh in. Several supervisors asked staff to return with additional materials, including potential alternative sites, a summary of permit volume for small and large wireless facilities, and any feasible mitigations.

After debate the board adopted a motion to continue the appeal and send the major use permit back to staff for additional environmental analysis and reconsideration, with direction to return at a later land-use meeting (targeted for September 10, 2025). The motion passed unanimously with all supervisors present voting aye.

The board’s options, reflected in staff paperwork, included denying the appeal and sustaining the Planning Commission’s approval; granting the appeal and denying the project; or continuing the matter for further analysis. The board chose the third path, directing further review rather than a final approval or denial.

Next steps will include the additional environmental and siting analysis requested by the board, potential outreach to the Spring Valley Community Planning Group (which previously had a tied vote on the project), and a return to the Board of Supervisors at a future land-use meeting.