Friday’s New York Times featured a bay area community’s opposition to a T-Mobile cell tower on a Boy Scout campground, and related details of Glendale’s ordinance, which was praised by San Francisco resident Doug Loranger:

“After an 18-month moratorium on new cell sites that will end this June,” Mr. Loranger said, “Glendale will have adopted one of the most stringent celltower-siting ordinances in the state of California.” The ordinance will increase the city’s oversight of the placement of antennae; cellular equipment proposed for residential areas will face a more intense review process; and carriers may need to prove why the equipment is needed.

Loranger is a co-founder of the Coalition for Local Oversight of Utility Technologies, which Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers joined, and which advocates repeal of Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act’s health and environmental preemption, and investment in high-speed fiber-optic broadband technology as a safer, faster alternative to universal wireless broadband.

As work on Glendale’s wireless ordinance has concluded, Sunroom Desk updated its resource page Wireless Facility Issues: Links and Background.

The page has links to Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers documents and reports to the community, city staff reports, local government hearing (videos), national and international resources, state and federal laws, appeals court rulings on the subject of wireless facility siting, and websites of local community groups. It also includes a summary of issues (current as of April 2010) surrounding wireless telecommunications technology.

Sunroom Desk published this archive for communities interested in Glendale’s effort to regulate installations of wireless facilities within the city.

Public Works Counsel Christina Sansone presented a report on the proposed ordinance to council and a proposed addendum that would allow public hearings for some public right-of-way installations. Members of the original neighborhood group GOACT and others spoke in favor of the ordinance. Industry representatives and Judee Kendall of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce expressed satisfaction that the moratorium on new installations would soon be lifted.

Among the comments:

“The ordinance provides sensible guidelines for wireless installations. The challenge will be in its implementation, and we are pleased that public notice requirements and public hearings will provide opportunities for city staff, members of the public, and industry to discuss wireless facility deployments.” – Elise Kalfayan, Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT)

“This is the most strenuous ordinance that I’ve ever seen..I hope the flexibility goes both ways…If it passes as is, we’ll do whatever we can to provide wireless service.” – Richard Roche, AT&T

“In enacting this ordinance, responsibility shifts from the community to staff, and vigilance will be required” – Raymond Quan – Pasadena resident

“This is an evolving industry, and ordinances are evolving also to address it. It was carefully and fairly created, and it should not create service gaps.” – Council member Laura Friedman

Council member Dave Weaver formally introduced the ordinance after the hearing.

City Council will review the ordinance at its regular meeting tomorrow, April 6, 2010, in temporary city council chambers at 633 E. Broadway, Room 105, Glendale.

The proliferation of public right-of-way installations of wireless facilities have been troubling for communities around the country. San Francisco is currently attempting to impose regulations such as those Glendale has drafted, while Los Angeles hasn’t yet addressed residents’ concerns with a moratorium or review of its policies.

See Monday’s post for a report on coastal residents’ fight against cell sites along a scenic route in Los Angeles.

GOACT says the ordinance has strict permit application, height, setback, and camouflage requirements for all zones. The group supports the ordinance overall, saying it exerts strong local control over installations and offers protection to residential zones. Not included in the proposed draft is an item GOACT continues to lobby for: a public hearing requirement for installations on the public right-of-way.

The revised draft ordinance is online here. The staff report to council on the wireless ordinance will be available when the April 6 meeting agenda is posted.

Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT) believes city staff have crafted a protective ordinance, and is urging residents to support it, and to ask council members to require public hearings for all installations.

The moratorium now in effect will be lifted after the ordinance is approved. As of February 3, 2010, there were 12 permits pending in or near residential areas, all Verizon installations in the Camino San Rafael/Emerald Isle/Chevy Chase neighborhoods.

The Glendale Planning Commission approved changes to Title 30 that require camouflaging, compliance with reporting and local zoning restrictions, and public hearings for installations on private property. Planning commissioners recommended that city council include slope, trees, and topography in siting considerations.

GOACT was concerned about public right-of-way installations in residential areas, regulated by Title 12 of the municipal code. At the Planning Commission hearing GOACT representatives urged setbacks of 15′ or 75% of antenna height and public hearing requirements. Industry representatives argued for fewer regulations, saying they needed installations in residential areas to provide coverage.

According to Public Works Counsel Christina Sansone, the draft ordinance contains a setback provision for rights-of-way in all zones, tying those setbacks to the requirements of the underlying zoning district.

The Glendale staff report and draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission is available via this link.

GOACT praised the protections city staff drafted for private property installations, while urging more restrictions for city-owned public right-of-way sites, which could be right in front of homes.

The report can be viewed here, and is reprinted below:

Moratorium on cell sites in Glendale residential areas continues.

15 or 16 permits pending on Public Right of Way (PROW), most in Chevy Chase, San Rafael areas.

3 permits pending on private property – 250 Mesa Lila Road (2) and 1280 Boynton Street (1).

Draft Wireless Ordinance released October 2009. Three community meetings held, comments received from industry and residents. City published all submitted comments here: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/pdf/wirelessAntennas_stakeholdersComments.pdf

Planning Commission hearing held February 2010. Staff report on proposed changes to Title 30; comments from residents and industry. Commissioners decide to include slopes, contours, trees, topography in siting considerations. GOACT praises Title 30 protections. PROW rules (Title 12) a primary concern.

NEXT STEPS IN GLENDALE:

Public Works Counsel still accepting comments. Planning Commission comments and subsequent written comments received from public or industry will be included in staff report to City Council.

City Council hearing – end of March to mid/late April. Review of draft wireless ordinance with changes to Title 30 (zoning) and Title 12 (PROW) will be on agenda.

GOACT’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
Urge City Council to enact
-setbacks of at least 15 feet for public right-of-way installations
-public hearings for public right-of-way installations.
Send comments to City Attorney Christina Sansone, and speak at the City Council meeting.
The draft wireless ordinance does not currently have these changes to Title 12. City staff and consultants told Planning commissioners it would be problematic to mandate PROW setbacks and hearings, but without them, residents are no better off than they were before.

Urge Glendale to adopt SDG&E and LA County Counsel’s recommendations for cell sites in fire hazard areas: undergrounding of equipment, ownership markers on poles, clearance requirements for overhead wires next to other wires, $500 million insurance requirement.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/MISC/111639.pdf
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/CM/111653.pdf

Petition Congressman Schiff for repeal of Section 704, Telecommunications Act of 1996. GOACT and the Coalition for Local Oversight of Utility Technologies (www.cloutnow.org) call for repeal of federal law which prohibits regulation of the “placement, construction, and modification of telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the health and environmental effects of such facilities”

First, the commission chair switched the agenda items, so an affordable housing project variance request (requiring 2 1/2 hours of testimony, public comment, questions, staff and applicant responses, and commissioner comments) was heard before the wireless ordinance. Because of the switch, consultant Rodney Khan, the development team, and the owner didn’t have to wait through a scheduled agenda item. (See the next post for notes on that case discussion).

Second, when the wireless ordinance did come up, staff only discussed Title 30 (zoning) changes to the Glendale Municipal Code, skipping Title 12 changes, which were of primary concern to residents and industry (and which were listed on the agenda for discussion!). Public Works Counsel Christina Sansone explained later that the Planning Commission only deals with Title 30 issues in Glendale, only City Council can approve changes to Title 12, but the commissioners needed to see Title 12 amendments for context.

Title 12 deals with the public right-of-way (PROW), and a wireless permit approval for a PROW installation was what caused the controversy over cell sites to erupt in Glendale. Although the commission couldn’t approve any Title 12 amendments, it served as a sounding board on PROW issues and seemed receptive to the idea of public hearings for all types of installations.

Notes from the meeting:

Glendale has a wireless telecommunications section within its Information Services Department, and its director has agreed to be an in-house resource for reviewing wireless permit applications.

Richard Roche of AT&T said that demand for wireless service has reached an all-time high and the company’s network engineers are scrambling to meet demand. He said the ordinance would increase the cost of doing business in Glendale, and thanked staff for “properly resisting setback requests” for PROW installations.

A Verizon representative said the new ordinance was beginning to resemble the health care bill, calling it “extensive” and “difficult”. She asked for uniformity in noticing requirements, not allowing staff discretion to expand notification for some permit applications.

A California Wireless Industry Association representative said people demand service the most in residential areas, usage has quadrupled, and wireless carriers need more capacity: “Hampering wireless services is not a laudable goal.” He predicted that many installations will have to be in sensitive areas such as residential zones.

Glendale’s legal counsel Jeff Melching said that Glendale staff considered a setback requirement for the PROW, but “came to the conclusion that we had generic tools available to address those situations. It is possible to put a presumptive requirement but then you’d have to create an exception if the carrier couldn’t provide coverage.”

Commissioner Stephanie Landregan commented toward the end: “I’m challenging the industry that there are better ways to do things and that you’ll do them.”

Chair William Kane commented that citizen calls for restrictions result from telecoms and federal and state authorities imposing too many restrictions at the local level – this is the inevitable push back. He also suggested that a simple rendering of any proposed site on a notification sign is a good idea.

To date, 25 neighborhood councils have sent letters and resolutions to the city calling for action. A fact sheet that cites Glendale as an example says:

Los Angeles’ existing cell tower regulations are a patchwork of confusing and sometimes conflicting rules, policies and procedures. There is no ability to deny a cell tower on aesthetic grounds, and there are no specific protections for residential neighborhoods (whether on private or public property). Utility pole cell site installations in public rights of way (ongoing in residential neighborhoods city-wide) are completely exempt from regulation; no installation or excavation permits of any kind are required if a telecom company wishes to install a cell tower with a utility pole as the support structure. DWP officials even claim that telecoms are supposedly entitled to erect pole structures of any height wherever they wish in public rights of way, without local regulation, because of the “Joint Pole Agreement” (JPA)…

Glendale recently responded to citizens’ concerns by imposing a moratorium and drafting a new comprehensive cell tower ordinance (now in the public comment stage); Burbank is now considering doing the same.

The public comment stage for Glendale’s draft ordinance is winding down. Tonight (5 p.m.), the Planning Commission will review the ordinance and staff responses to comments from the public and industry (agenda, staff report). Residents: this is your last chance to influence rules governing wireless installations in Glendale before the ordinance goes to City Council for final approval.

Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers distributed this flyer to residents encouraging participation at the meeting.

Staff’s report to the Planning Commission for its hearing Wednesday, February 3rd responds to all comments received by industry members and the public.

Extensive research on the matter enabled staff to call out T-Mobile’s complaint that the city is “imposing regulations on issues which substantive law prohibits the [Public Works] Director from doing.” The response: “T-Mobile has not articulated how the Public Works Director would/could act beyond the legal limits of his/her discretion.”

California Wireless Industry Association’s suggestion that Glendale take parks off the list of non-preferred locations (where they are now with elementary and middle schools) was flatly rejected citing City precedent.

The association also suggested that “capacity and new technologies” be considered as justification for new sites. The City responded: “Current law recognizes significant gaps in coverage as the proper standard for analysis, not capacity or new technologies.”

Staff incorporated Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers’ suggestion for larger public notice signs. However, the City did not incorporate GOACT’s request to hold hearings for proposed installations in the public right-of-way, responding: “…state law limits the City’s ability to restrict WTFs in the public right-of-way. The City must limit its consideration to reasonable time, place, and manner criteria.”