Lessons for Glendale in Second Reading of
Pasadena’s Proposed Wireless Ordinance 3

“Unintelligible”, giving away advantages to telecommunications companies, and failing to require justification studies for all permit applications are three main failings of Pasadena’s wireless ordinance, which will be enacted next month provisionally as a two-year moratorium on wireless installations expires. Citizens expressed these opinions at the Pasadena city council meeting last night, during public comment on the second reading of the ordinance.

Glendale residents concerned about their neighborhoods and property values should watch for wrong turns like the above as this city’s ordinance is drafted.

Pasadena citizens asked for a wireless ordinance that would limit installations and protect property values in residential areas, just as Glendale citizens did more recently. But Pasadena’s ordinance is confusing with respect to city-owned property (covered by Section 17 of the code) vs. public right-of-way installations (covered by Section 12 of the code). One speaker complained that the language of the ordinance was unintelligible, creating a disadvantage to the city and a corresponding advantage to telecom companies. Part 13 of the Section 17 amendment actually refers back to Section 12:

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).

Pasadena attorneys consulted telecom company attorneys (as the city attorney stated on the record last night), and city staff anticipated (or had knowledge of) permit application locations, as they revised the draft ordinance. Why, asked another speaker, are he and other Pasadena residents only allowed two or three minutes to comment during public meetings, but no open channels of communication with city staff, while industry attorneys are allowed to meet privately with these same staff members?

Justification study limitations also reflect a pro-industry bias. Residents consistently urged the city to require justification studies for all wireless permit applications as the only possible protection against telecom site development speculation, but city staff claims they cannot find legal precedent for it. (Actually, there is no legal precedent for not including it, as municipalities have virtually no other protection available under state and federal law, and the County of San Diego’s requirements in this area were upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

Staff also characterized offering city-owned properties without justification studies as a legal strategy (although it sounds more like a give-away strategy). While requiring justification only for permit applications in the public right-of-way is meant to discourage installations in residential areas, citizens want to extend this same protection to owners of property adjacent to city-owned or private property installations.

Concerned residents felt thwarted by staff members’ unwillingness to include a blanket requirement for justification studies after they had consistently pushed for it these past two years. The council prepared to approve the second reading, and the city attorney proposed revisiting it in September 2009 for possible amendment or “clean-up.” At that point, Chris Holden of District 3 came back to the issue, proposing that staff prepare a report to the council on the implications of an amendment to the ordinance requiring justification studies for all applications.

Holden explained that it was reasonable for the city to “go as far as we can to protect the people we represent. This is the kind of due diligence you expect when you evaluate a new business that wants to come into the community.” At Holden’s insistence, staff will prepare a report (which, because of technicalities, has to go through Planning Commission channels first) to be presented at a future council meeting. It’s a shame they didn’t take this extra step of “due diligence” as they drafted the original ordinance; citizens and council will now have to deal with the issue again in several weeks, as well as in September 2009. The proposed ordinance, along with a summary sheet detailing recent changes, is on this page of the Pasadena city website.

The lessons for Glendale citizens: insist on a clear and comprehensible ordinance that offers maximum protection for residential neighborhoods and property owners, watch for industry efforts to influence the ordinance, and make sure to voice your concerns!