Proposed Pasadena Wireless Ordinance Is A Disgrace
Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers has been following a longer-running battle in Pasadena over cell towers in neighborhoods there. At a Pasadena City Council meeting last night, citizens were understandably upset when staff presented an ordinance that offered them almost no protection and oversight, and no acknowledgment that the Ninth Circuit Court-approved County of San Diego ordinance could be adapted for Pasadena.
The ordinance was not approved, and the matter was continued to the February 23, 2009 Pasadena City Council meeting.
Miriam Nakamura-Quan, in her public comments at last night’s meeting, criticized city staff’s recommendation to impose time limits on permit approvals for wireless facilities, even though no specific time limit regulations currently exist, and it is only the wireless lobby who wants such limits (not citizens).
According to Nakamura-Quan:
The City Staff has “folded” together the Wireless and Cable Facilities under the same 60 day time limit and has defined “telecommunications facilities” to include cable providers.
The State and Federal government has already defined terms such as: telecommunications facility, ground mounted and co-location. It is inconsistent for the City of Pasadena to get creative by redefining these commonly used terms. To “fold” together the definition and application time limits, makes the proposed Title 12 amendment changes very confusing. There is a State and Federal precedent in the definition of these words.
…In any good business practice you don’t give away any advantage. A “reasonable time” does not mean that the City needs to set any self-imposed time limit.
The recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in the case of Sprint vs The county of San Diego reaffirms a municipal governments right to have a wireless Ordinance and to have some discretion in the placement of Wireless Facilities.
Other Cities do not have a “Shot Clock” approach to permit applications this includes Santa Monica, Glendale, San Diego, LA County.
A pro-industry approach to the City’s municipal codes is not good public policy. Enforcement of the Municipal Codes should be a priority of the City and should not have to be policed or demanded by its constituents. A common sense and good business policy is not to give any advantage away you don’t have to, especially to the Telecom Industry.
The City of Pasadena needs a protective and strong wireless ordinance, as much as State and Federal laws will allow. Time is up on the concept of the Shot Clock for Wireless Facilities in the City of Pasadena.
Many thanks for giving the citizens of Pasadena a voice in your blog. The support of Go ACT in the Pasadena Wireless fight has been invaluable. The information and experiences shared by the different City groups fighting cell tower proliferation has been an unforgettable experience. There has been no other time where I felt this level of comaraderie. Homeowners become activists when a cell tower application is being processed by a City government. I have never seen neighborhoods be so threatened by any other entity. The old saying is united we stand divided we fall and that is the tactic the Telecoms have been using by targeting individual neighborhoods. The telecoms have tried and true game plans of wearing down neighborhood opposition. It can get Kafkaesque at times when your City government is not being pro-neighborhood and they are also trying to wear you down. I hope that the Glendale residents have lots of input into their Ordinance and get one that actually protects the citizens. La Raza
Thank you, Miriam. I hope that Pasadena city staff get firm direction from the council to come up with an ordinance that protects neighborhoods. Streamlining the permit process and imposing time limits on approvals sounds like a convenience for staff’s benefit, not the citizens!
Would you please clarify the State and/or Federal definition of “ground mounted” for me – or at least instruct me as to where I might find said definition.
I have tried without success.
Thanks
Nadine Rondinella
Concerned Pasadena Resident
Various municipal codes have their own definitions. I gather that Pasadena’s definition includes antennas mounted on existing lampposts or poles because these support structures are “ground-mounted.” I do not know off-hand what the State or Federal definition is; I suggest you search through relevant laws in the California Public Utilities Code and FCC regulations.