Pasadena’s Post-Midnight Review of
New Wireless Ordinance
Pasadena City Council began its “first reading” review of a new wireless facilities ordinance at 11:45 p.m. last night, after the Master Street Tree Plan and the Moratorium on Tree Planting in the Playhouse District and Other Public Areas agenda items took three hours to consider. (The council vote, almost split, lifted the moratorium for three business districts.)
Every council chamber seat was full for the street tree discussion, and several stakeholders spoke. The crowd thinned out considerably after the vote, but a good number of residents stayed to hear council deliberations on the draft wireless ordinance.
Mayor Bogard started out by conceding that the Opportunity Sites proposal in the ordinance, directing telecom applicants to select from a map of 179 city-owned properties throughout Pasadena, wasn’t workable. Many of the sites were close to or inside residential areas, and both residents and legal staff felt the program didn’t offer enough protection to the city.
As midnight passed and public comment commenced, the mayor directed city staff to amend the “first reading” of the ordinance during the council meeting. Council members suggested several changes: a required setback of 100 feet minimum from any residential zone (instead of a distance requirement equivalent to the height of any wireless tower), a 30-day notice period for residents (instead of 10 days), a 10-year lease period for wireless sites (instead of 20), and the inclusion of city-owned library properties on the list of prohibited sites.
The council also decided to ask the Pasadena Unified School District to consider a prohibition of facilities on its properties, which in many cases are in residential areas.
A Justification Study is still needed!
At the Second Read on Monday, May 18 we still have another chance to make this request.
We have requested at evey hearing that a Justification Study be included for every Wireless Application. Without a Justification Study the City cannot legally deny a Wireless Ordinance. The County of San Diego recently won their case in the Ninth Circuit Court. This case affirms a municipal governments right to have a Wireless Ordinance. The Wireless industry has a powerful lobby and without a strong City Wireless Ordinance we will be left unprotected.
If the County of San Diego has fought and won a court battle to have a Wireless Ordinance that requires a justification study for all Wireless applications then Pasadena should smartly do the same.
I went into the meeting last night wanting only the Justification Study, even though the proposed ordinance is still not as protective as I would like. We have done our best.
Surprising changes were made and it was because of all our collective efforts that we will now have more protections in the City of Pasadena.
[...] Why do city staff have discretion in determining which sections of a municipal code are applicable – can’t it be spelled out? Does “this section” refer to Section 17 or Section 12? These are key questions for owners of private property adjacent to city-owned property, because if Pasadena succeeds in diverting installations from residential areas to city-owned property, Section 12 requires 30 days notification for surrounding property owners, and justification studies, while Section 17 does not. Finally, this speaker complained that while “Opportunity Sites” are no longer in any headings of the ordinance, language pertaining to them still exists (residents and council both objected to the concept of opportunity sites at the last reading, as reported here). [...]