The Gabriel River Infrastructure Development (GRID) project, a futuristic proposal to transform the Port of Long Beach into a compact, zero-emission, fully electrified super terminal served by electric freight pipelines to inland distribution centers, was presented yesterday at the National Urban Freight Conference in Long Beach. GRID is an exciting alternative to existing plans requiring more real estate and conventional truck and rail loading procedures.

The Model Design Manual for Living Streets, a joint project of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, was unveiled last Thursday in downtown LA. Focusing on street design that accommodates cars, pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, it also serves as a template for improving streetscape aesthetics, sustainability, and commercial appeal. On a parallel path, the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan being finalized includes a proposal for completing all Southern California Association of Governments bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure plans while closing the gaps between them at an estimated cost of $1.63 billion for the entire region.

Locally, the North Glendale Community Plan, which includes improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, will be presented at the Monday, October 17 Planning Commission meeting.

The 30/10 Initiative has gone national with America Fast Forward, using the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) to leverage billions of federal dollars. Antonio Villaraigosa and other metropolitan mayors have been promoting it in Washington. At the 10th annual gathering of transportation professionals in Southern California, Mobility 21, the need to upgrade America’s transportation infrastructure was a major theme. American Society of Civil Engineers President-elect Andy Hermann presented its commissioned report Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure, showing that U.S. transportation infrastructure deficiencies cost American households and businesses roughly $130 billion. (Official infographic at this link.)

The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing yesterday on part of President Obama’s jobs bill providing a one-time $10 billion allocation for transportation projects. CNBC’s short segment yesterday covered the issues and politics over creating and funding a National Infrastructure Bank.

An idea floated by the Infrastructurist (and repeated in the latest Transit Coalition monthly enewsletter, where this Editor read about it) is to flip the President’s job proposal funding for highways and transit – giving $27 billion to transit projects and just $9 billion to highways. The Transit Coalition supports the idea as an antidote to decades of highway expansion; another justification is the trend in urban highway teardown projects around the country.

Such forward-looking transportation ideas deserve consideration. What a shame so much money was misallocated and poorly invested leading up to 2008 and we are still paying for it in this extended Great Recession. There are several great ideas out there for improving the U.S. transportation sector’s efficiency, competitiveness, and sustainability.

Council members were critical of the way wireless permit applications and residents’ concerns had been handled to date. The council agendized consideration of a moratorium (to be heard probably June 8), and authorized drafting of a new ordinance as well as an RFP to select an independent, third-party expert on these matters, to review the ordinance with residents’ concerns foremost.

The city council meeting can be watched via this video archive link – http://calabasas.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
Item 5 discussion starts around 7:30 pm.

Glendale Mayor Laura Friedman appeared at the request of Calabasas residents to relate that the ordinance Glendale enacted to regulate cell sites is working well. Many Calabasas residents spoke, calling for stricter rules and citizen oversight, and the city council methodically went through a list of recommendations developed by its commissions and staff. The hearing took about 3 hours.

Cell Phones: The industry may have won the legal battle, but it is losing ground on public relations. San Francisco Chronicle columnist John Diaz wrote, “Consumers should have access to that data and can decide for themselves whether they want to wait for a scientific consensus before considering radiation levels when shopping for a phone.” CNET mobile device blogger Kent German wrote, “I’ve always thought the ‘Are cell phones dangerous or not debate?’ is one worth having. What’s more, the CTIA’s reaction to the ordinance was rather extreme…the CTIA needs to recognize that public concerns can’t be stopped with a lawsuit.”

Cell sites: San Francisco residents have mobilized to oppose proliferation of equipment in their neighborhoods. T-Mobile lost the first round of its lawsuit to overturn the Board reversal of a Taraval Street CUP approved by the Planning Commission. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the decision met the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s requirement that it be ‘in writing’ and based on ’substantial evidence.’

T-Mobile prevailed in a mid-April Supervisors vote against further CEQA review for a Grant Avenue installation, but residents’ unsuccessful appeal did result in some important developments. Doug Loranger reports:

“Board President David Chiu instructed the Planning Department to begin treating microcell antenna applications with the same standards and procedures as the Department currently uses for macrocell antenna applications. Chiu also asked the Planning Department to begin outlining the process for the City to develop a ‘master plan’ for future wireless build-out in San Francisco, which a number of Planning Commissioners, as well as members of the public, have been requesting for some time.

In addition, Supervisors Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi voted in favor of the appellants. Mar stated that the appellants had made a case for the ‘cumulative impact’ of so many wireless facilities within a short distance in North Beach, whereas Mirkarimi questioned the FCC standards and the extent to which they are truly protective and may be open to change in the future.’”

Colin Bogart, coordinator of Glendale’s Safe and Healthy Streets Program, spoke in support and quoted survey comments he’s received about the need for more sidewalks and safe pedestrian access. Bogart is gearing up to present the Draft Safe and Healthy Streets Plan for Glendale to a joint meeting Monday of the Planning Commission and the Parking and Transportation Commission (set for 6 p.m. in City Council chambers, 613 E. Broadway – the public is encouraged to send and send in comments!).

The Glendale News-Press published this feature on the plan’s progress yesterday.

Grandview Avenue leads directly up to Brand Park. A sidewalk ends at Kenneth Road, starts again further north, stops, then starts up again and continues to Grandview’s tricky 3-way intersection with El Miradero and Mountain.

Photos taken yesterday traveling north on Grandview:

The tower, approved by a single Conditional Use Permit in 1960 and currently owned by American Tower Company (ATC), is host to over 60 antennas that have been installed over the past 50 years without the required permits. ATC’s failure to live up to the conditions imposed by a 2009 CUP that allowed T-Mobile antennas on the tower played a major role in the Board’s decision to deny Clearwire a permit at this location.

Before its vote on the CUP appeal, the Board rejected residents’ request for environmental review of Clearwire’s project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

According to local advocate Doug Loranger, “While there was a strong legal case for CEQA review, the resulting delays in Clearwire’s build-out of its network across San Francisco would have cost the company millions of dollars and it therefore brought in some powerful local lobbyists to stave off a vote in favor of CEQA. Nevertheless, local Bernal Heights residents did an outstanding job of bringing ATC’s various permit, code and tax violations to the attention of the City and organizing their neighbors to achieve yesterday’s result.”

This Friday, November 19, Oakland, California residents plan a demonstration and march against Verizon antennas scheduled to be installed directly across the street from an elementary school. They raised $1,000 to appeal the installation, and lost, but are not giving up. The San Francisco Chronicle reports today:

The parents have two options left. On Friday, they will appeal to Verizon’s “corporate conscience” with a march from the schools to the wireless provider’s local retail store, said Jen Schradie, whose two children attend the charter school.

They also will seek to arm themselves with science, conducting their own health study – a costly, time-consuming endeavor, but one that could provide the proof they say they need to stop such placements in the future.

“It’s going to be a long-term process, but we’re definitely going to be involved in conducting the study,” said Schradie, a sociology doctoral student at UC Berkeley. “We’re not willing to sit back and cross our fingers.”

T-Mobile’s withdrawal letter for the St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church site concludes:

We view this as a case of unfounded fear overshadowing thoughtful planning, science and reason. This withdrawal will not eliminate the need for improving wireless coverage in the area. To fulfill its federal mandate and its commitment to customers, T-Mobile must re-apply with one or several alternative sites. We trust that the Commissioners and community will favorably consider the alternatives in light of T-Mobile’s voluntary withdrawal of this application.

The “federal mandate” it refers to is probably their FCC license to build and operate a network in the area, but no federal mandate requires the company to expand infrastructure (from 582 existing to 1,530 antennas within 5 years) in order to attract broadband customers, which is T-Mobile’s goal.

With just one carrier’s plans to almost triple the number of its antennas within five years in one city, Glendale citizens’ worries about cell tower and antenna proliferation seem very reasonable. A national strategy for managing wireless infrastructure that takes citizen and resident concerns into account is overdue.

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.

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”