Windsor Hills Community Prevails as
T-Mobile Loses LA County Appeal 3


The Windsor Hills/View Park coalition, which assisted Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT) as it mobilized last November, finally won its own two-year fight against a cell tower installation in its neighborhood.

T-Mobile had applied in 2007 for a permit to install a tower on a small commercial property site leased to CVS Pharmacy (the company opposed the installation) surrounded by the View Park neighborhood (that also opposed the installation).

Although the property owner agreed on a lease with T-Mobile, surrounding residents had several objections. The plans exceeded local height requirements. The carrier’s proposal to attach equipment to a large wooden trellis was inconsistent with that structure’s original purpose of beautifying the parking area. The trellis attachment also raised several safety issues, as common sense would dictate when thinking about metal electrical equipment attached to a wooden structure.

Residents couldn’t find any evidence among local T-Mobile users of a coverage gap. They did find, and prove, that T-Mobile’s claimed 911 coverage gap in their area was greatly exaggerated and misleading. Their in-depth research on this subject was a great help to GOACT, who discredited the cell carrier’s claim that it needed to expand its wireless 911 coverage in Glendale.

After three hearings on the matter, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission denied the permit application by a 3-2 vote (reported here on this blog). T-Mobile appealed, and today the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors heard the matter as a de novo case, saw a crowd on hand to hear the proceedings, listened to comments by residents and supporters from other communities such as Glendale, and finally approved a motion by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to uphold the denial.

John Flynn, attorney for the applicant, addressed the board before residents spoke, saying that he has appeared at hearings all over California on cell tower installations, adding to the residents’ case by acknowledging that such installations are strongly opposed by communities throughout the state.