Consultant Jonathan Kramer recommended an approach Glendale has already taken:

He recommended cities have a very strong application process so that applicants must meet all the requirements at the start of the application process in order to avoid incomplete applications that would slow the discretionary review process.

Council members also discussed Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), proliferation, aesthetics, and RF compliance.

Tonight the Burbank City Council will hear a staff report on federal rules controlling wireless RF emissions, and limiting the ability of local agencies to regulate wireless facilities. Jonathan Kramer, an expert on radio frequency emissions and telecommunications planning, who was a consultant to the city of Glendale in developing its wireless ordinance, will give a brief presentation.

Oakland and San Francisco officials are confronting wireless controversies June 15:

Oakland residents are appealing to city council an approved Verizon plan to locate nine cellular antennas on an abandoned paint factory near an elementary school.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will again consider requiring labels on cell phones that specify Specific Absorption Rate, or radiation level.

Wireless carrier T-Mobile is now on the defensive in San Francisco after compelling testimony by residents against two antennas on a residential apartment building in the Marina District (the public hearing can be viewed on this video archive; scroll to item 14). According to Doug Loranger, “T-Mobile rep Lisa Nahmanson asked for and was granted a continuance until July 15 in light of what probably appeared to be an imminent vote against T-Mobile after an excellent case was presented by residents and their supporters from around the City.”

The company will also likely request a continuance at a June 17 hearing for a wireless permit application inside St. Matthew’s Church, which faces huge opposition from nearby residents. T-Mobile admits it is trying to expand local market share; residents argue that municipalities are under no obligation to approve cell sites based on a company’s market expansion plans.

Burbank’s city council will hold a second study session/public hearing on wireless facilities on June 14, with Jonathan Kramer (who served as a special consultant to Glendale) on hand to answer general questions. A third study session is planned but not yet scheduled.

News on Burbank’s move to update its wireless ordinance and background on cell site applications in Burbank is on the local website www.BurbankAction.com. and on the Facebook page No Cell Tower in Our Neighborhood.

More than 30 residents attended the informational meeting, along with City Council member Gary Silbiger, school board member Karlo Silbiger, and City Council candidates Jeff Cooper and Meghan Sahli-Wells.

The FCC’s recent ’shot clock’ ruling, which requires municipalities to decide on new wireless facility permits within 150 days – in this case, by the end of April – came up during the session.

That ruling was strongly opposed by a coalition of cities including Glendale, and a court action calling for its revocation has just been filed (more on this in the next post). SCAN NATOA, a professional organization Kramer is affiliated with, is also strongly opposed to the FCC’s action.

In Culver City, the permit decision for a cell tower on top of a local Cash’N'Carry store surrounded by homes now rests with the City Planner. Residents established this website and plan to continue their opposition.

Those federal and state laws clearly have an excellent grasp over local efforts to control wireless facilities siting.

Glendale public works counsel Christina Sansone, city consultant Jonathan Kramer, and outside counsel Jeff Melching explained how the Telecom Act of 1996, the California Public Utilities Code, and court of appeals rulings have severely limited or left ambiguous how municipalities can regulate placements.

The Glendale ordinance was drafted to give the city more leeway to judge permit applications, but offers limited protection against public right-of-way installations in residential areas. Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers committee members urged the city last night to improve those parts of the ordinance by incorporating setback provisions similar to those in San Diego County (upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

Two more community meetings will be held so residents and the community can learn about and comment on the draft ordinance. The Glendale News Press has a report on last night’s meeting here.

CTIA, the wireless telecom industry lobby, petitioned the FCC back in July 2008 to rule as follows:

1. To set a 45 or 75-day “shot clock” on local action on certain wireless facility applications. If the deadline isn’t met, the local authority will have violated Sec. 332(c)(7)’s requirement that a locality act on the application within a reasonable period of time.
2. If a locality fails to act within the shot clock deadline, the wireless carrier’s application will be deemed granted. Alternatively, failure to meet the shot-clock deadline would establish a presumption in any Sec. 332(c)(7) litigation that the wireless carrier is entitled to an injunction ordering the locality to grant the application unless the locality can justify the delay.
3. To clarify that Sec. 332(c)(7) bars any local zoning decision that prevents a wireless carrier from offering service in an area where another wireless carrier is already providing service.
4. To rule that Sec. 253 preempts any local zoning or state laws that impose unique requirements on wireless applicants vis-à-vis other kinds of land use applicants, such as local or state laws that require all wireless siting applicants to
seek a variance.

Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT) found out about this petition too late to submit a public comment (the period for public comments expired on September 29, 2008). The National League of Cities had warned its members in this September 2008 report about the issue and urged them to contact the FCC. Bloggers like this one who have followed the issue for awhile posted extensive background information and urged readers to look into the matter.

The legal adviser Glendale retained to provide expert counsel on cell tower siting is Jonathan Kramer, who assisted SCAN NATOA (California and Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) in drafting this paper in opposition to the CTIA petition. Among other points, it points out that

There is no reasonable doubt that that Congress intended that the normal, locally-based zoning process control for wireless siting. The lack of ambiguity in Congress’s intent makes it clear that the Commission has no legal authority to usurp the local process, and the timing associated with that local process.

The Commission is explicitly excluded by Congress from interceding in local zoning issues and that is exactly what the CTIA’s Petition would have the Commission now do.