Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Calaveras supervisors to review Vallecito Bluffs cell tower permits, citing safety and permitting concerns
Summary
Residents near Vallecito Bluffs Road told the board the local telecommunications facility was converted from a temporary to a permanent installation without required approvals, created setback and easement violations, lacks RF compliance records, and poses fire and access risks; they asked the board to agendize the matter and consider revoking the permit.
Residents of Douglas Flat and Vallecito Bluffs Road asked the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 13 to place a dispute over a telecommunications facility on a future agenda, saying the facility was built and expanded outside the scope of the permits on file and that it presents safety, permitting and road-maintenance concerns.
A resident who identified himself as Nick summarized permit history and alleged that a portable cell tower approved under an administrative use permit (AUP) in 2011 had been altered and incrementally replaced by a larger permanent structure. He said a subsequent 2015 AUP expired and argued the current structure was constructed after that permit expired. Another resident, Amanda, cited a certified survey she said showed the current tower sits 4.6 feet from a neighboring property line and inside a 50-foot easement where construction is prohibited; she also said the site lacks certified RF-emissions testing and that the structure sits in a high fire-severity zone with hazardous equipment on site.
Dennis Griffin and other neighbors described repeated construction traffic harming a single-lane access road and creating emergency-access concerns for residents, including people who rely on wheelchairs. Petitioners asked the board to agendize the tower for a subsequent meeting, request county enforcement or revocation of the AUP, and consider de-energizing the facility if violations are confirmed.
County staff did not present an enforcement action during the Jan. 13 meeting; the public comments were recorded for the official record. Board members acknowledged the concerns and indicated staff would follow up about next steps and options for bringing the matter to a future agenda.
