City seeks resolution over cell issue
Calabasas can't dictate what towers look like
By Joann Groff joann@theacorn.com

The Calabasas City Council discussed the appearance and placement of cellphone towers at a recent meeting, issues over which the city admits it has no jurisdiction. Mayor James Bozajian suggested updating and tightening the nineyear-old ordinance that regulates applications for the towers.

Stemming from a proposed antenna project in the residential Greater Mulwood area, city staff members put together a report on factors the city has control over and those that are out of its hands.

The most contentious issue- the appearance of the commonly disguised but still noticeable towers- is out of the city's control at this point, according to Jonathan Kramer, an attorney retained by the city to review telecommunications facility applications.

Aesthetics off limits

"The level it would have to get to to have aesthetic control is virtually unachievable," Kramer said. The antenna's appearance "would actually have to cause a driver to look away from the road. It would have to be that gross to allow us to have aesthetic control."

According to federal and state regulations, Calabasas cannot regulate the placement of facilities based on radio frequency transmissions or set its own standards for emissions. Cities also can't prohibit or delay applications through excessive regulations or extensive processing time. The state's public utility code grants telephone companies the right to install facilities in any public right of way.

However, cities can regulate facilities on private property by requiring discretionary permits and conformance to FCC standards. Calabasas requires compliance with FCC standards in public rights of way and regulates on the basis of safety and travel or use of the right of way.

City planner Tom Bartlett explained the review process for cellphone tower applications. After it is determined that a project complies with regulations, the application is handed over to Kramer, who verifies that the plan conforms with FCC standards.

Kramer conducts a technical review of proposed equipment and antennas. Applications are then presented to the development review committee and other agencies for review.

Councilmember Barry Groveman wanted to know what more the city could do. Kramer pointed out recent case law, chiefly involving Sprint and cities or counties that have tried to exert aesthetic control over installations in rights of way.

"They cover the same issue, which is, can we as a local government, deal with aesthetics . . . in the right of way," Kramer said. "And the courts at the federal level have come down and said no. (They've) come to the conclusion that local governments don't have much authority over right of way sites."

The state court is now considering a case concerning a city's aesthetic control over the towers and is expected to make a decision in the next 12 to 18 months, Kramer said.

City attorney Michael Colantuono stressed the city's lack of control, saying the law is "largely stacked against us.

"When a telephone company is providing telephone services in the right of way, the city has very limited authority," Colantuono said.

"We basically have to let them do it," he said, "unless we can demonstrate that it's impairing the use of the right of way for other uses, like creating a sight line impairment, damaging other utilities, making it hard to maintain other utilities. If it's telephone and it's in the right of way, we have very limited power."

Community Development Director Maureen Tamuri said that aside from the recent Mulwood uproar, there have not been any problems in the processing of more than a dozen tower applications.

"That was really the first where there was any community concern, and it was one that we elected to get public input (on) because of its residential location," Tamuri said.

Mayor Pro Tem Mary Sue Maurer recommended holding public hearings for each application. However, Colantuono reminded her that the city has little control over tower placement.

"That's absolutely a policy judgment for the council," Colantuono said. "The reason that some communities do not choose that kind of process is because it puts the city in a difficult position to invite public input on a matter that we have relatively little discretion (over)."

Regardless of control over placement, Bozajian called for an update of the city's ordinance regarding cellphone tower applications.

"Our ordinance is nine years old," Bozajian said. "It might help, especially in light of the recent case law and the recent changes in technology, to make it a little tighter and make the requirements a little more stringent."

He and other council members encouraged the newly formed General Plan advisory committee to consider tower regulations while working to update the city's General Plan.

Calabasas has handled applications for towers from Cingular/ AT&T, Metro PCS, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon.