2 CITIES’ CELLPHONE TOWER TALES FOLLOW VERY DIFFERENT PLOTS
Two medium-sized West Coast cities have taken very different approaches to zoning proposals for controlling wireless telecom tower siting, with Cal. city’s plan almost certain to end up in court if adopted, while Ore. city’s plan appears to be proceeding with hardly ripple.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Watsonville, Cal., City Council scheduled March 25 vote on controversial proposal for telecom tower zoning ordinance that would ban such towers in 90% of city’s land area. City of 50,000 95 miles south of San Francisco would ban towers within 500 ft. of any residence and within 1,500 ft. of any school. Ordinance would allow towers only near airport and in industrial zone in southwest corner of city. Ordinance was drafted after series of public hearings this winter by City Planning Commission in which community activists demanded stringent restrictions.
But John Doughty, city’s community development dir., warned that proposed ordinance faced certain challenge in court by wireless carriers on ground it was unreasonably stringent. He said city appeared to want restrictions out of fear of property value loss and health risks, which he said were shaky legal grounds for zoning out towers. Council nonetheless voted 5-2 Fri. to stick with strict ordinance. Measure also would require public hearings before granting any tower permit and would require carriers to provide proof of need for tower. City already is defendant in pending Verizon lawsuit over tower permit denial, in which company claims it suffered unfair discrimination.
Meanwhile, City Council of Beaverton, Ore., voted unanimously Fri. to draft zoning ordinance to regulate placement and design of wireless telecom towers that aroused little controversy in industry or public. Northern Ore. city of 80,000, 10 miles south of Portland, has no ordinance specific to towers and up to now had decided tower permits based on interpretations of existing zoning codes. Proposed ordinance would limit tower height to 80 feet in residential zones, 100 feet in commercial zones and 120 ft. in industrial areas -- 20 ft. higher than current limits. Towers would be subject to same setback and buffer requirements generally applied to other new structures. Ordinance would prohibit so-called “top hat” tower design where all antennas are clustered in triangular structure at top of tower. Instead, antennas would be mounted on arms up to 5 ft. long set at certain heights on tower. Ordinance also would require tower applicants to demonstrate it wasn’t feasible to use existing towers or other existing structures.
Council hopes to have ordinance up for vote in April. City Planning Commission recommended drafting ordinance for towers after hearings last fall that saw only tepid citizen opposition to towers but revealed industry desire for more consistency in tower siting decisions. Council decided against requiring camouflage of towers behind trees or screens after wireless carriers said that could interfere with signals. Industry also had requested increases in maximum tower height to reduce number of towers needed for full coverage. City already has 14 cellphone towers, plus 5 installations attached to existing structures. It also has approved 5 more installations as yet unbuilt. Tower ordinance proposal attracted little attention at council meeting and it was advanced as noncontroversial consent agenda item.