New Campaign Emerges to Shape Cell Tower Ordinance
The California Redistricting Commission for Saving the Santa Monica Mountains posts that our activist community sent off no less than 65 letters to the Redistricting Commission in support of returning to the 1991 legislative district lines, and not splitting up the communities that are connected by the Santa Monica Mountains. Well done, Calabasas and neighboring communities!
Another letter writing campaign has emerged, this time over the proposed cell tower ordinance, online at CitizensReviewAssociation.org. The cell tower ordinance will be discussed as agenda items #5 and #6 in Wednesday night’s City Council meeting. Once again, City staff are placing protection of their turf over the direction given by citizen commissions. Both the Calabasas Technology Commission (CTC) and the Planning Commission recommend that the CTC have final say for the approval of cell new towers. The City’s proposal to modify the building code stops well short of this, allowing the CTC to determine that the proposed cell tower is the “least intrusive,” and that a public hearing be held jointly with the CTC and the Planning Commission, with no authority prescribed to the hearing. The City’s proposal, in short, circumvents the input of property owners.
The City’s proposed ordinance further limits the decision making process for cell tower location to a determination of “necessary” and “least intrusive.” “Necessary” requires a technical understanding of the alternatives, which in essence requires a repeat of whatever studies already took place by the wireless tower operator – not a trivial expense. “Least intrusive” as a criteria will not always lead the wireless tower operator to the most acceptable solution. If the least intrusive option for a particular area is in front of your house, you darn well aren’t going to be happy with this criteria. NOT intrusive would be a better criteria.
If decision makers need legal guidance as to what criteria can and cannot be used, then let that instruction be given outside of an ordinance. Rather than attempt to define what’s legally defensible in an ordinance, it’s better to support a process that meets community standards as conveyed through a community-operated body. That’s what the CTC is, and why the PC recommends that the CTC decide. It’s wrong for the City to circumvent community governance.
Another reason to avoid technical criteria in an ordinance is that such issues are not simple. More towers do not necessarily mean more radiated energy. More towers can be operated at lower powers due to overlap, for example. If we aren’t to build massive ugly high power towers on the highest hilltops, in sight of everyone, then several low power towers scattered about become a more attractive alternative. Such considerations make an examination of tower placement quite complex. Certainly not the subject of city ordinances. But a worthy subject for citizen review on a case-by-case basis.
Importantly, health concerns, however real or unreal they may be, are next to impossible to defend as legal criteria, if only because the necessary studies require funding. The companies that can most afford to fund these studies simply aren’t going to do so, as they are better off without them. Unless definitive studies about health impacts are conducted, such concerns become a vicious circle that can lead to indefensible results.
While it may take a long time before this publication is happy with the City’s performance, we have a pragmatic view about wireless technology. The technology is bound to grow. (How many of you bought a smart phone in recent years?) Wireless transmission to the home is cheaper to install than wired. Wireless offers competition as towers can share technology, while wired services are controlled by the operator and block competition. Ultimately, the growth of wireless services should be governed by citizen review, and not by a City that has demonstrated more often than not that it believes citizens are the enemy.
Enough said. Go write a letter to your City Council members.
