The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to settle T-Mobile’s lawsuit over the board’s 11-0 vote in May 2010 to deny a conditional use permit. T-Mobile filed the lawsuit after residents steadfastly opposed its plans and after that successful appeal to the board. Several residents spoke at last week’s Rules Committee, urging a vote against settlement, reasoning that it would send a message to wireless carriers that all they
have to do is sue the city and then settle the lawsuit to get what they want. One resident said, “By catering to these well-heeled corporate litigators, this board will be sending the wrong message. Since 2001, there have been 17 conditional use appeals involving cell sites like this one. Just last year there were two; both were unanimous 11-0 votes in favor of the residents. 14 have been decided in favor of residents, 3 resulted in federal lawsuits, the city prevailed in all three which entailed the same questions before you today.”

Court decisions prevent carriers from seeking attorneys fees or damages for contested site denials, even if they prevail against municipalities. In this case, neighborhood residents even offered to pay for the city’s retention of an expert for trial of the ‘significant gap’ issue. Despite the pleas, Supervisors voted 7-4 to settle, with John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi voting against: Avalos and Campos spoke about the settlement as being bad precedent, while Supervisors who voted in favor of settlement gave no reasons for doing so.

More on public comments in this matter: citizens pointed to charts showing the large number of cell sites maintained and proposed by T-Mobile and AT&T and speculated that T-Mobile was attempting to muscle in as many sites as it could in advance of a hoped-for merger. Citizens were also concerned about the settlement’s effect on T-Mobile’s lawsuit filed with NextG Networks and ExteNet opposing newly-enacted legislation that regulates public right-of-way installations in San Francisco.

Those rules, and the impact of that lawsuit’s outcome, were referenced more than once by the Los Angeles City Attorney in a Planning and Land Use Management/Public Works Committee meeting yesterday on proposed new rules for LA. Members present included Paul Krekorian, 2nd Council District, who has had ongoing discussions with Sherman Oaks and Sunland/Tujunga residents upset about T-Mobile installations in their neighborhoods.

Krekorian warned there could be negative impacts if utility pole exemptions in existing city code were removed, because carriers would have less incentive to “co-locate.” Richard Alarcon, 7th Council District, raised other provocative points. He asked how decisions about cell sites could be based on aesthetics when utility poles on which they are often placed are already ugly. The City Attorney responded that such arguments are attempts by municipalities to “carve out some means of discretion over siting.” During public comment, Pacific Palisades Residents’ Association President Barbara Kohn said that there was no fine line between ugly and uglier – the bulk of additional equipment and associated electrical boxes made utility poles burdened with wireless equipment far more prominent and far uglier. She and every other neighborhood representative speaking emphasized that it was critical something be done to regulate installations.

Alarcon also opined that the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, which greatly restricts municipal authority over wireless siting, was enacted in response to local attempts to make money off of telecom installations. He said it is a question of “who gets the campaign contributions.”

Tally of speakers at the LA hearing: Residents/resident association representatives – 8; Wireless industry/business interests – 5. Among the residents were representatives of the Sherman Oaks group Get the CELL Out, who have worked extensively with Krekorian and voiced strong support for the City Attorney’s recommendations to 1) remove the utility pole/light pole exemption; 2) expand notification requirements; and 3) enhance existing aesthetic criteria. They also asked for permit duration limits, and a requirement that renewed permits and pending applications fall under the new ordinance. Pacific Palisades resident Patrick Hart said that the city should consider evaluating permit applications by additional criteria including functionality, public safety, and environmental standards.

Cindy Cleghorn, Secretary of the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, said residents need to see “the full project”, since what is sent out in notifications for proposed new sites is often not complete. She complained about emissions and noise from existing sites which were not adequately disclosed.

Anita Gabrielian, current Glendale Community College Trustee and Executive Director of External Affairs for AT&T in Los Angeles, recited stats heard before and urged the committee to consider how to improve policies for everyone including the wireless industry. Just as Richard Roche, AT&T External Affairs VP, stated recently in Burbank, Gabrielian said that demand has grown 8000 percent over the past four years and is projected to grow 8-10 times higher by 2015. She said AT&T invested $19 billion last year, and $20 billion this year on infrastructure, to bring optimum wireless service to customers.

The three other representatives of wireless companies, together with Doug Arseneault of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, all urged the committee to establish a working group drawing from city departments, LA DWP, wireless carriers, residents, and other stakeholders to study the issues and report back to city council.

Committee members resisted the industry delay tactic suggestion to form another body to study an issue that more than 50 residents groups want to see resolved. They directed the City Attorney to start drafting a document while identifying working group members that could provide input once the document is drafted. Staff were directed to return in 60 days with ordinance recommendations.

This is just California, and San Francisco and Los Angeles are just two very big cities in a huge state, and that was just yesterday’s news in those two cities. Similar fights have started for more than a decade, they are growing in number, and they are going on all over this state, and all over the country, in municipalities and counties large and small. The reason: municipalities are bound by federal law which enforces acceptance of FCC guidelines in these matters, but citizens do not trust current FCC guidelines for safe exposure to wireless frequencies, and they do not trust the FCC to have the best interests of local communities in mind as it handicaps local zoning authorities.

Also yesterday, a coalition of three environmental and health advocacy groups issued a public call to citizens, urging them to contact their representatives in Congress to request the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to update its obsolete cell tower safety regulations. Excerpt:

The FCC’s cell tower safety regulations need to be revised immediately because:

1. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF Radiation as a “Possible Carcinogen”

2. Current Regulations Have Long Overlooked the Harm from RF Radiation’s “Non-Thermal” Biological Effects

3. Biological and Health Effects from RF Radiation Are Widely Occurring In Both Adults and Children

4. Evidence for RF Damage to the Ecosystem is Mounting

To protect the public from risks from radiofrequency radiation (RF) the FCC must establish new safety guidelines for cell towers, Wi-Fi and cell phones that reflect the current science showing harm to human health, wildlife and nature.

The Pasadena City Council just agreed to review approval of a T-Mobile cell site in an area identified on the National Register of Historic Places. Residents mobilized to protest the installation, which was proposed for a wooden pole. Pasadena Now reports “The wooden pole is owned by the Joint Pole Association of which T-Mobile is a member, and not by the city, so the city would not receive rent. Relocating the array to a city-owned pole would result in T-Mobile paying the city $8,000 per year in rent. Members of the City Council were not aware of this until the Monday meeting.”

The Joint Pole Association and its regulations have been studied extensively by Pacific Palisades advocate Christina Spitz. Palisades Post just published this report on her continuing efforts to enact better cell site regulations for the whole city of Los Angeles.

Burbank planning staff told the Board that Glendale’s ordinance was lengthy and difficult to understand. In fact, Glendale’s ordinance is exhaustive and thorough. When the Planning Board chair asked if there had been any legal challenges to Glendale’s ordinance, staff did not know the answer. In fact, there have been none, as Los Angeles city staff managed to verify a few weeks ago by calling Glendale city attorney Christina Sansone.

Vahe Hovanessian urged fellow Board members to take the time needed to work out details. He had asked for a map of all cell sites in Burbank, but instead got a list of addresses. Glendale staff used a GIS system to map all cell sites in this city when its wireless ordinance was being updated. They also inspected sites and found some code violations. The effort paid off for Glendale in lessons learned and additional staff recommendations for the ordinance.

Hovanessian insisted that seeing exactly where Burbank cell sites were placed could help the Planning Board better understand what kind of permits it should require for different parts of the city.

Among Burbank residents’ objections to the draft ordinance was that it allows cell towers on private institutional property (i.e., churches and private schools) in residential areas. While Glendale’s ordinance does not strictly prohibit these, it does restrict installations in residential zones unless carriers can prove a site is needed in a residential location.

Wireless carrier representatives addressed the board on several points. AT&T External Affairs VP Richard Roche reported that demand for mobile services has grown 8000 percent in the past 4 years, and is projected to be 8-10 times greater by 2015. He also asked that Burbank give its city staff the flexibility to work with carriers in identifying the best sites to meet demand while balancing neighborhood concerns.

The proposed update to the City of Burbank’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ordinance, approved without changes by the Planning Board, goes before Burbank City Council on July 26.

This means public school grounds could be sites for cell towers. Across the country, parents and families have protested leasing of school property for cell towers. Why would Burbank want to allow or encourage this? Glendale’s new ordinance prohibits sites in residential areas unless needed to fill a significant gap. Most Glendale schools are located within residential zones, and there is no exemption for “institutional properties.”

The LA Public Works Committee reviewed the long-anticipated Los Angeles City Attorney’s report on cell tower siting rules yesterday. Several leaders of LA neighborhood councils and homeowner associations spoke, some asking for a moratorium on sites in residential zones while new rules are drafted.

Link to June 7, 2011 report, signed by LA City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and Assistant City Attorney Ted Jordan: Developments in the law regarding regulation of the placement of cell towers and related equipment

Also this week, the Calabasas City Council enacted a wireless installation moratorium to address residents’ concerns about oversight of wireless installations and loopholes in the city’s regulations. Staff are completing a new draft ordinance and developing procedures for the city’s Communications and Technology Commission to review permits.

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.

At the city attorney’s request, advocates for a new Los Angeles wireless ordinance summarized key provisions of other California cities’ rules (including Glendale’s). Focusing on public right-of-way (PROW) installations, they completed two summaries: Discretionary PROW Permits and Administrative PROW Permits.

While they worked on the first two documents, the CPUC adopted General Rule 170. According to a third summary the citizens compiled on CPUC and FCC Recent Developments, it “appears to assert that the CPUC has sole authority to issue discretionary permits and conduct CEQA reviews for telecommunications construction projects in the PROW.”

The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have filed petitions for rehearing and a motion for a stay. Even some cell carriers have filed a petition for rehearing. The League argues that the decision exceeds the CPUC’s authority, violates local governments’ rights, conflicts with CEQA requirements, and is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation.

Several weeks earlier, an LA homeowner asked for information on a surprise Pacific Palisades cell site right next to her home. Days went by without any information obtained; no clear chain of authority or responsibility could be identified. A report on these efforts was sent to senior city staff with the comment: “It is truly astounding that citizens are forced to go to these lengths just to get information about one of these installations. If we had a proper regulation scheme then obviously the City would know how to get in touch with the appropriate persons.”

To date, 47 Los Angeles neighborhood councils, associations and/or federations (representing 82 organizations city-wide) have expressed concerns or called for reform of the city’s regulation of wireless facilities (including the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the Hillside Federation) – not to ban all cell towers, but to provide for proper planning, community input in siting decisions and aesthetic protection for residents.

Calabasas also deserves credit for addressing residents’ concerns about wireless tower citing. Council is advancing the city’s Communications and Technology Commission Wireless Ordinance Cell Tower Review, with ideas for regulation in light of other cities’ successful ordinances (including Glendale’s) and current case law, to a Planning Commission Study Session.

At last night’s meeting, officials and residents showed in-depth understanding of the issues and concerns related to wireless infrastructure proliferation. Council comments included the need for wide notice, adequate time for review, and public hearings for all proposed sites whether on private property or in the public right-of-way. Residents expressed concerns about “regulatory capture”, and asked that all meetings and discussions on this issue be public.

The Councilman was impressed with our presentation and receptive to our case. We are thrilled to report that he has committed to the following actions:

•to propose to the city council that better notification and possibly ordinances be required from cell phone companies in the future, making reference to the possibility that changes could be retroactive as was done in the San Francisco case

•to draft a letter within the week listing the concerns of the Albers neighborhood to be presented to T-Mobile requesting an itemized response to those concerns within 14 days

•to provide us with the city attorney’s response to his request asking for a report on the extent of his authority to take action on the current cell tower installation

•to present our case to the other city departments asking for a full analysis of the material

•to reconvene after all the information from his office has been received and analyzed in support of an ongoing dialogue with our neighborhood.

The group followed up with a presentation to Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council’s Land Use Committee, arguing that the tower was installed in violation of the LA Municipal Code and “with reckless disregard for the neighborhood community.” The Land Use Committee unanimously supported their petition for a city investigation; it went on to receive unanimous approval from the council’s Executive Committee.

Krekorian’s office, Get The Cell Out, and several other Los Angeles neighborhood advocates are still awaiting the release of a promised Los Angeles City Attorney’s report on options for regulating cell sites in the city.

Although the group will discontinue its website, leaders wanted their resources to be available to other communities interested in how to oppose cell sites.

Stop Sawtelle Tower provided four key documents to Sunroom Desk, including its analysis of how to fight the application, its review of different candidate sites, a T-Mobile response to its objections, and its own reply to the T-Mobile response. All of these have now been uploaded to the Sunroom Desk Wireless Facilities – Issues and Links resource page.

Thanks to Stop Sawtelle Tower, congratulations on a successful civic effort, and best wishes on crafting a good wireless ordinance for Culver City.

Resources developed by Burbank and Los Angeles residents are also available via links or uploaded documents on the new Local Resources section of the page (scroll down past quite a few hearings and documents).