HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP - Public CommentsAVIN srlo�
puklu co writ-
10_aT j
Citizens Against Unnecessary Cell Sites In Residential Areas
The undersigned residents of Private Road wish to express their concern regarding the siting of
cell phone transmission facilities in and adjacent to residential areas in the City of Newport Beach,
and a specific project that has been proposed in their neighborhood ( "PA2007- 002 ").
PA2007 -002 is a discretionary project for adding T- Mobile transmitter boxes to an oversized
replacement streetlight pole which will significantly impair the previously pristine open -space
views of at least two of oar fellow residents, and potentially impact the quality of life of all by
placing large, unsightly, and apparently unnecessary utility boxes in our street's parkways, and a
large equipment vault on Irvine Avenue. Adding to our concern is that this project was planned
and approved in March 2007 with no public notice or outreach of any kind, even though it appears
to be the first approved application for a wireless transmitter facility in an R -1 area of Newport
Beach.
There is no indication any of this will serve the immediate project area, which, by T- Mobile's own
estimates, already enjoys good to excellent coverage. It appears that an overwhelmed planning
department has had neither the time nor energy to investigate what problem actually exists, or what
is the most logical solution to it. Had the impacted citizens been consulted at an early stage, a host
of alternatives could have been considered, avoiding an unnecessary waste of valuable City,
resident and applicant time and money.
If allowed to go forward, we feel this project will set a dangerous precedent for an unchecked
proliferation of cell sites in residential areas without public input.
In view of our experience, and to prevent such occurrences in the future, the undersigned
residents of Private Road petition the government of Newport Beach to:
1. Reconsider PA2007 -002.
2. Amend the Telecom Code and departmental policies to make public input mandatory at all
stages of the planning process, particularly for permits impacting residential areas.
3. Strengthen oversight of the issuance of telecom permits by the Planning Department and
that department's commitment to avoiding unnecessary wireless facilities in residential
areas.
Signature: �J`- Printed name: Oct"ies �A, S
Address: U 22 t o r't-Yi "CcQ Date: r o &(1QZoq
Signature: Q!A . Printed name: [ w+
Address: 6� 0_7"_171 Date: —/ - 91
Citizens Against Unnecessary Cell Sites In Residential Areas
page 2
Signature: G'�fwn ywr� Printed name: {Mat�are>41�Tk.�r, c�
()&6 /< AU Date: 10111/01
/!2 Printed name
Address: Date: I i 1 09
Sig Printed name: e. ( C�
Address: /Date: / In I i ,0 /�/
Signatu �inted name: *1 e'J4 -e / -,/ • 5, . 444
Address: aai r .� <t7,4 T� �/� Date:
Signature: a rinted name: ae; -1iy /E L p"
Address: _oao7/p Date: /O //'09
Signature: Printed name: �-�--
Address: Date: loll
Signature, ""wCv"'" rintedname: M/
Address: '230j / V'A Date ! 1 0
Signaturv,:- .,Q4 Printed name:
Address: C) `'r yc� f3f- W-c� Date: L I
Signatur Printed name: tALE2 /i (�
Address: ' 1 / Date: ( F�-
Signature: C_ -- Printed name: LA4/6 Z�/t tex /wv c-
Address: 2 oy /�i! w� /� Date: // - o c r - Z c� r� Y
Signature: ��� Printed name: At�C- 'Jp1?I
Address: 19�i'4' } d. Date:
Citizens Against Unnecessary Cell Sites In Residential Areas
page 3 )
Signature: _ Printed name: Ja�l/J G. BV2TDN
Address: 2 3 / :J� PR I VATS RD A)gt 'f6d4cN Date: r 2 - oet . Z ooq
Signature: � a4 Printed name: lVhW(Se4 k 66/4-1e�
Address: -,3/7 ? RVW -?M R-O IV, Date: Lp e79
Signature:
Address:
0
hFJ
I I Y,� I` III ��I�L� =�� I • / � � ���ti ��
Signature: ba J Printed name: pa y) A _ Lyon✓
Address: 3!L h Date: l0 1� 09
Signature: =Printed name �P)
Address: 'k r _ "�, t^ / Date:'
Signature: Pr tedname:, c�-
Address: l G /��(1 ° Date:
Signature:,.. Printed name: eluC iE /y, c 3%�l� /2KS
Address4i Date:
Signature: )21k� P " ted name: Z,
Address: U - Date: 0 /z d
Signat L----Vrinted name'Ja (j ti`((Lo— Ski �&
Address: ate: 1p
Signature: Printed name: l)i`j4cS` i - lT/ArQz,
Address: j_ e:
Citizens Against Unnecessary Cell Sites In Residential Areas
page 4
Signature;/ ��`" ��'" "` Printed name:
Address: a. Z /e,/ Date: / / 2-10
Signature: Cc Printed name: (L
Address:
6,L51� �i ZI �&i nDate: it
Signature: '~� Printed name: `�tN�W-k7%.
Address: go Date: Lol -j 1-�fi-
Signature: Printed name: C-xttq 40 (� �•� eJ— I "(
Address: '300 da►C ".8 C R g'Z GL Date: 4e f vIj n A
Signature: r- ��, Printed name: V\- v t •e
Address: D f2 a Date:
Signature:
Address:
Signature:
Address:
Signature:
Address:
Signature:
Address:
Signature:
Address:
Signature:
Address:
Printed name:
Printed name:
Printed name:
Printed name:
Printed name:
Printed name:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
cif a)) M09
Problems with Permit Application PA2OO7 -002
The Newport Beach Telecom code (Mun. Code 15.70) requires that a balance be
struck between the need for better cell phone service and the negative impacts of a
proliferation of wireless transmitter facilities on the community
The Application
• To achieve this balance, the applicant for anew cell site must demonstrate the
existence of a clear, well- defined problem and that the solution they offer is the
least intrusive one.
• T- Mobile has offered two vastly different descriptions of the problem addressed by
PA2007 -02: (1) a two mile long coverage deficiency from Mesa to Dover Drive;
(2) a 200 ft long dropped call area between Heather Lane and 23'd Street.
• They have almost certainly misrepresented the coverage that could be achieved
from the selected location
• They provided the planner with only two of the five required photo simulation
angles, neither of which disclosed the impact on residents' open space views.
• Whatever problem is claimed, they have failed to demonstrate that use of the
selected streetlight pole is the lowest impact, let alone the only, possible solution.
The License Agreement
• To further assure balance, agreements for use of City -owned property, like all
other contracts, are supposed to be reviewed and approved by the Council.
• It is unclear if the details of this agreement were ever disclosed to, or reviewed by
the Council, and hence if was legally binding.
• The site appears to be of so little technical value to T- Mobile that the agreement
was voluntarily terminated by their Director of Engineering and Operations in May.
• City employees concerned about the loss of $1,100 per month revenue (a factor
that is not supposed to be weighed in the balance) encouraged T- Mobile to void
the termination, and T- Mobile has now adopted a hardened stance claiming the
site is essential.
• It is unclear if the City ever agreed to voiding the termination.
for more problems: http:/ /newportcelIsites.wikispaces.com /Problems +with +PA2007 -02
()C-+ a71 9WW1
Changes Needed in Code and Policy
The following is a list of changes in the City ordinances and policies that seem necessary to prevent
a recurrence of the Private Road cell site controversy.
The Telecom Ordinance (Mun. Code 15.70) needs to be revised to:
o Require, at a minimum, that the state - mandated public notice and hearing
requirements for a conditional use permit are satisfied.
• Minimal guidelines for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are provided
in Section 65905 of the California Government Code. They call for a
public hearing with notification, by mail, of all residents owning property
within 300 feet of the affected area. Public notice of telecom permit
applications is currently required only in special cases, or at the
discretion of the planner, and even then, the Council review is not a
public hearing (Mun. Code 15.70.070F).
o Establish a clear and simple appeal process for impacted residents
• The only appeal currently mentioned in the Telecom Ordinance is one by
the applicant (Mun. Code 15.70.070E).
o Establish a clear permit approval process for applications in public rights of way
(PROW'S)
-Although applications for wireless sites on City -owned property in
PROW's (such as the Private Road site) have been processed by the
Planning Department using the Telecom Code, the current code does
not define a "reviewing authority" for such instances (Sec. 15.70.070A),
making it unclear if they are covered by that code or not.
o Reconsider the co- location rule and how it should be applied in residential areas
• The current co- location rule (Mun. Code 15.70.050C) requires the
applicant to explain why co- location is impossible, otherwise it is
required. This may not be appropriate for antenna deployment in
residential areas.
o Make provision for a technically competent independent evaluation of the
applicant's claims of coverage deficiencies and projected coverage, and that it is
using the lowest impact technology available to solve the stated problem
• The Planning Department must make decisions based on technical
information about radio frequency coverage and available methods of
adding coverage, but lacks the knowledge necessary to determine if
the information provided is credible or not
o Establish rules for compensation, by the applicant, for losses in property value
• Cell sites adjacent to residential properties clearly lower the value of those
properties. A handful of residents, who may not be personally served by
the project, are unfairly asked to bear this burden for the benefit of the
applicant and its subscribers.
City employees need to be better educated about their open government obligations to
make planning documents readily available for public inspection
o In the present case, at least one concerned citizen was refused, by the City
Attorney, the right to inspect documents previously freely available, or to
contact City employees. Cities always have the power to be as expansive as
they wish in access to public information, but this seems less, even, than the
bare minimum required by state law.
• Planners need to be better educated about the need to balance demands for seamless cell
phone coverage against the negative impact of an unchecked proliferation of transmitter
stations
o Many cities feel they must accede to every request for a telecom permit
because the applicant can successfully contest any denial under state or
federal law. This is simply not true.
• The pre - application "Approval in Concept" process needs to be reconsidered
o Telecom applicants are currently subjected to a process, of unknown origin,
whereby the project is approved "in concept" before the application is formally
submitted. Even under a revised telecom code, this would lock the planner and
telecom into a single highly- developed, yet not necessarily optimal, solution
before the public has been consulted about possible alternatives.
• A complete and comprehensive list (and map) of past and present telecom
applications /installations needs to be readily available on the City website
o This information is not currently available. Concerned citizens have no way of
knowing what the City's plans for cell phone transmitter deployment may be
• Each telecom vendor making a permit application needs to provide an up -to -date and
comprehensive plan showing the number and location of facilities, including future ones,
they will need to provide adequate cell phone service
o Applications and approvals are currently made on a piecemeal basis, yet it is
impossible to tell if they strike a suitable balance between need and proliferation
unless they fit in a coherent overall plan for that vendor, possibly including
locations outside Newport Beach. Asking for this essential information is
currently at the discretion of the planner (Mun. Code 15.70.07083).
Council Policy L -23 needs to be brought into conformity with Section 421 of the City
Charter by requiring that License Agreements for telecom installations on City -owned
property be knowledgably approved by the Council and signed by the Mayor
o The City Manager is currently empowered to execute license agreements,
apparently with Council review only in exceptional circumstances (Mun. Code
15.70.07005 -6).
for further information: http:// newportcellsites.wikispaces.com /Changes +Needed