Posted on July 24, 2009

Richmond Heeds Call for Rule Changes for Cell Antennas

By Katherine Tam
West County Times

The way a bunch of cell antennas went up in Point Richmond won't happen again.

Residents caught off guard by antennas atop an apartment building in 2007 lobbied city leaders for tougher standards and public notice. They got it.

The Richmond City Council soon will require wireless providers to place cell towers, antennas and other equipment in industrial zones and on public property first. They must prove they've exhausted this option before proposing commercial and residential zones, with residential areas the last resort. A public hearing will be required.

These provisions were not a must before.

"We are thrilled. We tried to make it loophole-proof," said Robin Carpenter of Responsible Antenna Placement and Planning for Richmond.

The group sprung up in 2007 when neighbors discovered T-Mobile antennas going in at 260 Water St. Residents complained that the city did not notify residents or hold a public hearing first. They said the antennas do not fit in with the neighborhood and would hurt property values. Some worried about possible health effects.

Planners had already granted T-Mobile a permit. The residents sued the city, T-Mobile and the apartment building owner. Attorneys for T-Mobile and the apartment building owner have argued the permit is legal. The case is still pending.

With a moratorium on new applications in place, residents and officials sat down for more than a year to revise a wireless communications ordinance that officials admit was outdated. The City Council will consider final approval of the changes Tuesday. The law would take effect in 30 days if it passes.

The new ordinance would not prohibit cell equipment but require companies demonstrate that what they propose is needed to close a coverage gap of at least 1 acre. It sets standards on where equipment should be located, what antennas or towers should look like and how they ought to be maintained. Permits would be good for 10 years; companies would apply for a permit again upon expiration. Equipment must be annually certified to ensure it meets Federal Communications Commission rules.

Cellular providers described the revisions as "overkill," warned that good cellular coverage would suffer and said federal law pre-empts the local ordinance. The city disagrees.

"It goes to show when people put their minds together for a legally defensible and community-benefit-oriented ordinance, it can be done," Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said. [emphasis added]

Carpenter, whose home is 40 feet from the Water Street antennas, said she experienced migraines, visual problems and nose bleeds after the equipment was installed. The symptoms cleared after she followed a doctor's advice in 2008 and moved out of her home, an old Victorian her husband spent 12 years restoring, she said.

"When we formed RAP we asked for three things -- a moratorium, a new ordinance and a removal of the antenna farm," Carpenter said. "We won the first two and are proud of that. We haven't won the third at this point, and if we did it will probably be too late to hold onto our home."

The Federal Communications Commission prohibits local governments from banning antennas based on health reasons, but some are lobbying to change that.

The Alaska Supreme Court in 2007 upheld a decision by the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board to award disability benefits to a cellular equipment installer. The installer complained of headaches, eye pain and mental problems that he attributed to exposure to radio frequency radiation.

In 2008, a California court ruling involving Sprint and San Diego County affirmed that cities can have broad zoning authority over cellular equipment, as long as local regulations do not stop wireless companies from closing significant gaps in service.

Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or ktam@ bayareanewsgroup.com