“While this change may not encourage co-location, it will ensure that all new facilities will be thoroughly reviewed and that community members will have the opportunity to voice their opinion about the project at a public hearing.”

…The proposed language in the interim ZTA is intended to serve as a temporary measure while staff works on a comprehensive update. The interim language is intended to be broad enough to give staff flexibility when working with CUP applicants as well as give the Planning Board (or the City Council if appealed) additional latitude to require or request additional aesthetic requirements.

Burbank residents working with city staff learned that a fall Community Meeting will be scheduled to solicit input for the wireless ordinance before it goes to the Planning Board and City Council for approval.

Yesterday’s Merrick Patch reported:

A proposed new Hempstead ordinance announced Tuesday morning, which still needs to be approved by the Town Council, is aimed at making telecommunication companies “meet the highest standard of proof in establishing the need for cell towers.”

One feature of the proposed law would be not allowing cell towers or antennas within 1,500 feet of homes, houses of worship, day care centers and schools, unless the telecommunications provider can prove the need for such a facility in that location. The legislation would also require wireless companies to provide documentation that proves the need for a tower or antennae, such as service gaps in the area, and to present a checklist to determine whether existing cell phone sites could accommodate additional equipment.

Two West Coast community fights over cell towers were also in the news this past week. Huntington Beach City Council just voted to ban cell towers in two city parks, after months of citizen protest over their initial approval without wide public notice. Although one already approved tower could be the subject of a lawsuit, the original cost estimate of $60,000 is problematic for the carrier:

Beyond the safety concerns brought forward by residents, some council members said T-Mobile misled the city with their original cost proposal for the tower.

City officials said T-Mobile came back with their plan and told city staff the Harbour View tower would cost up to $200,000, which violates a city rule – enacted by the public through local Measure C – that says any project in a park that costs more than $100,000 must be voted on by residents.

In Oceanside, parents at a charter school are trying to prevent installation of a rooftop cell site/microwave array. The Oceanside Planning Commission is also considering a new wireless ordinance, according to this North County Times report on the Clearwire/Sprint lease proposal for the Coastal Academy site:

The proposed ordinance regulating the location and appearance of cell towers would encourage clustering antennas on one site rather than erecting single antennas at multiple sites.

Mayer said the new ordinance might help the parents because the Planning Commission recommended that it include provisions to discourage placement of cell towers near schools, churches and day care centers. The Coastal Academy is next to a day care center.

In June 2009, Sharon Curry, a psychologist in Merrick, [Long Island] woke up to find a cell antenna abutting her backyard, level to her 8-year-old son’s bedroom window.

Puzzled by its presence, particularly because she lives next to an elementary school, she did research to see if there was cause for concern. What she learned about possible health impacts, she said, led her to seek help from civic associations and to form a group, Moms of Merrick Speak Out, to keep new cell towers out. She said she was seeking the “responsible” placement of cell antennas, away from homes and schools.

The article goes on to say “The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna,” without commenting on the FCC’s credibility to dictate acceptable exposure limits.

Back in Los Angeles, the Silverlake Neighborhood Council endorsed the Burbank Residents’ Report in a memo to Los Angeles city council members.

The Burbank report, prepared by residents to inform city officials and staff working on a new wireless ordinance, presents proactive wireless siting rules in other communities, including Glendale. The Silverlake NC is one of 45 residential groups, representing over one million stakeholders, that have petitioned the city of Los Angeles for more oversight of wireless installations.

Also back in Los Angeles, Dr. Magda Havas will be speaking this Thursday in Woodland Hills on her research linking proximity to cell towers with health effects.

At the city council meeting, Herbert Molano suggested gathering information on which grant programs were effective, and which intersections’ problems were mitigated. Council members agreed to seek “evidence-based programming” and called for a staff report. John Drayman reminded everyone that while reports would take awhile, constituents need immediate city action to reduce excessive speeding.

The August 18 webinar, which wasn’t planned to coincide with the city council discussion, featured quite a bit of “evidence-based” findings on traffic calming “Road Diet” measures. These Diets reduce the number of vehicle lanes, widen travel lanes, and incorporate bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways as well as more street parking.

Among the goals of a road diet: improving safety, livability, access, and sustainability. The webinar focused on arterial roadways with poorly performing commercial areas that were redesigned to reward short, sustainable trips (and improve access to those commercial businesses) instead of long, unsustainable trips.

In Seattle, the “Stone Way” case study showed a 2% reduction in aggressive speeders, an 35% increase in bicyclists, a 14% reduction in overall collisions, a 33% decline in injury collisions and an 80% decline in pedestrian collisions, and a ripple effect in which neighborhood traffic also decreased on adjacent streets. The conclusion city planners reached: all street users benefited from reduced vehicle speeds, more mobility choices, on-street parking, safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, an economic boost provided by better access to local businesses, and increased livability.

A fascinating case study from Macon, Georgia, showed how a new master plan to connect Mercer University with the historic downtown district, Medical Center, and the Convention Center across the river overcame pockets of opposition by creating a smaller, multi-modal transportation corridor. Among the conclusions of the webinar speakers: safety is a prime selling point of road diets, but the new designs often become “classy improvements” that revitalize unique districts along their routes.

To condense the notes: plenty of “evidence-based programming” in the August 18 Safe and Healthy Streets webinar can provide Glendale with a Road Diet model to reduce speeding, improve safety, and better balance mobility with access.

Admission $10 (bring a person half your age and get a half-off discount!) For more information, call: (818) 243 -2322.

Sherman Oaks residents just defeated a T-Mobile cell tower by convincing the area planning commission that T-Mobile hadn’t looked into alternative sites.

The Argonaut published an extended article on opposition to the cell site and Maxine Waters’ concerns about the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act that restrict local governments from considering health and environmental effects of cell sites. Excerpt:

Waters said she would be looking into the effects of federal legislation that does not allow homeowners or government entities to halt the installation of a cell tower due to health concerns.

“Rest assured, I will have my staff examine and look further into this issue of protecting residents from this type of incursion and we will inform the community of our results,” the congresswoman told the audience of approximately 125. “You got me started and I look forward to the opportunity to be of service.”

The organizers, Residents Engaged Against Cell Towers, a Southern California coalition, plan a 40-minute talk, followed by Q&A. This event addresses growing public concern about adverse health effects from radiation-emitting technologies, evidenced by residents’ opposition to proliferation of cell towers in Los Angeles and around the country, San Francisco’s new right-to-know SAR cell phone legislation, and consumer groups and cities supporting moratoriums on smart meter installations.

Havas has studied the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, and ground current. She will explain why citizens should be concerned about potential health risks related to electromagnetic radiation, and present her BRAG™ project which encourages schools to identify nearby cell antennas, monitor EMF emissions, and advocate for placement of antennas no closer than 1500 feet from school property. (Dr. Havas will also be presenting her research at the Cancer Control Society Annual Conference on Sunday, September 5 at the Sheraton Universal. Universal City.

Elizabeth Kelley will describe the implications of new cell phone “right-to-know” legislation in San Francisco, proposed cell phone research and labeling legislation in the U.S. Congress, and public policy and advocacy needs on this issue.

The discussion is especially timely as 44 neighborhood councils and resident groups within the city of Los Angeles, representing more than one million stakeholders, have been calling on their city government to increase oversight of cell antenna installations and to adopt clear and consistent rules such as the new wireless ordinance recently enacted in Glendale, California.

Here is a link to the REACT event press release, which mentions Burbank’s recent work to update its wireless ordinance, and Glendale’s successful effort to enact a protective wireless ordinance.

Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

The latest agreement, hammered out privately between Verizon and Google, appears to be a proposal rejected by the FCC, and leaves open all the major issues with wireless networks. Most observers believe wireless networks, currently strained by inadequate infrastructure, will predominate in the future. This isn’t good news for those concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless transmission sites operating 24 hours a day throughout populated areas.

Major commentaries and explanations, under the Paperweight:

Net Neutrality, CNET Video interview with Larry Downes and Maggie Reardon – Focuses on reasons for resistance to the interference of the FCC. Key quotes:

“The real concern is what they might do in the future, like turn it into cable television.”

“Political groups in Washington see this as an opportunity to push other agendas that go along with it…it has been extremely politicized which has been very unhelpful.”

“The whole authority of the FCC to do anything here is being called into question.”

“Either these rules are good for the whole internet, or they aren’t any good at all.”

“Other countries have wired, fiber-optic networks…they have bigger fish to fry…control of internet content [etc.].”

I’m very suspicious and skeptical of the FCC; I think anyone who has looked at the FCC long-term recognizes that there are tremendous risks to introducing them into any industry or any piece of an industry.”

“We will certainly still be talking about this in six months.”

Google, Verizon and net neutrality: what does it mean? – PDA: The Digital Content Blog, August 10, 2010. Key quotes:

The internet today is, mostly, a level playing field. We pay a fee to have access to the internet. Web services pay to host their content and to for that content to be accessible. And internet service providers pay for the bit in between – the connection.

…the desktop is dying – wireless, mobile networks are the future. So the internet of the future will operate on the network of the future which will largely be a wireless one. Under the Google-Verizon proposal, wireless services would be exempt from all these requirements, which means ISPs would be able to discriminate against competitors and would be able to block access to a service even if it was legal. It’s the same principle as your mobile operator charing you more to call a friend on another network – but with everything from video, to email, gaming, music – anything you do on your phone.

A paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse – ArsTechnica, August 11, 2010:

What’s all this about the “unique” character of wireless networks? Rob Frieden, a respected Penn State telecoms scholar, noted this week that “the rationale for exempting wireless does not pass the smell test… The technical and operational aspects of wireless strongly necessitate the non-discrimination requirement.”

Back in April, Google agreed. It strongly lobbied against this idea and the logic behind it. Wireless companies (like Verizon) that seek a nondiscrimination exemption based on the allegedly “competitive nature” of the wireless sector, “fail to acknowledge some relevant facts,” the company wrote.

Google and Verizon’s net neutrality proposal explained, EnGadget, August 9, 2010:

Now, we don’t know for sure what happened, but we’ve got a theory: the proposal reads to us like Verizon’s basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants — apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be “transparent” about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That’s a big deal — it’s pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services.

What is clear from all the above is that very powerful corporations are fighting an all-out battle to retain financial and managerial control over commercial information networks, wired or wireless. Doesn’t the public deserve another option to big business or big government control over information networks?