TELECOMMUNICATIONS – City exerts more control over cell towers
The City Council on Tuesday night passed a set of ordinances intended to better regulate cell phone tower installations in city right-of-ways.
In doing so, the council began the process of addressing an issue that has drawn complaints from residents irate over newly installed towers near homes — and several more that are planned to be installed — by cell phone carrier AT&T. The ordinances defer to federal laws that give carriers the right to install towers but give residents the right of free appeal on aesthetic grounds and the city more power to control those aesthetics.
Mayor Steve Napolitano, who had requested the item be agendized, said that the city’s approach is to respect federal laws while still exerting what ability the city has to minimize impacts of cell phone equipment on its streets.
“The idea here is to adopt [the ordinance] so we retain control to the extent possible,” Napolitano said.
The new ordinances, one of which was adopted as an urgency ordinance, were also crafted so that the city maintains the ability to quickly change its approach, in light of what City Attorney Quinn Barrow described as a “fluid” area of legal policy. The California Supreme Court on April 5 unanimously upheld a 2011 San Francisco ordinance that requires telecommunications companies to obtain a city permit before installing the large antennas and related equipment that comprise cell phone towers on roadside poles. The court ruled that the city has the authority to decide whether installations “incommode,” or disturb, the use of its streets, and indicated that aesthetic judgements could factor into such decisions.
“The power to regulate the location and manner of line installation is generally a matter left to local regulation,” wrote Justice Carol Corrigan in the 7-0 ruling, upholding multiple lower-court decisions in the city’s favor.
Manhattan Beach’s new regulatory approach stops short of claiming such authority, which appears to fly in the face of federal and state law. AT&T spokesperson John Heffernan reminded the council that 1996’s federal Telecommunications Act and California Public Commission code explicitly allow the company to access telecom facilities and install equipment as long as they do not obstruct the public right-of-way. He said the federal act “established key limitations on local regulations.” As Heffernan began to talk about other legal developments, a timer pinged. His three minutes at the podium were up; rather than move to extend his three minutes, Napolitano gave the AT&T representative a curt but cheerful, “Thank you, John,” adding “Nice beard though.”
A spokesperson from Crown Castle, which represents several wireless carriers, said that newer designs would make all cell tower equipment less obtrusive and that the companies were prepared to work closely with the city. Councilperson Richard Montgomery said both of these factors were critical, particularly approaching the city with “more of a team concept” than just serving the carrier’s needs.
“I hope you work with our staff to realize anything you can do to lower the scope, that way you can build what you would like to see build helps us all,” he said. “As long as you keep an open mind, designs we have seen will actually have features that do not impact the aesthetics we have here…We’re not saying we don’t want cell site coverage. We do. We want flexibility on location and height. And a little goes a long way in being a partner with us.”
More than a dozen residents spoke against specific cell tower installations. Napolitano urged them to come back to the council meeting in early June when specific applications for installation would be reviewed. Resident Jon Checoyski thanked the council for its approach.
“I think we’re doing exactly what government was designed to do, to represent the people, especially against larger organizations like AT&T,” he said. “We’re not against cell towers in general. I think we’re against ugly intrusive towers in residential neighborhoods that are outside
your daughter’s bedroom door…If we let this go unchecked, there is going to be lines all over the place. And I think it makes a lot of sense to have a time out here and develop some sort of sensible plan where we can have cell coverage and make sure it is minimizing the aesthetic impact.”