Irvine Rejects Cell Antennas; Sprint Appeals
Irvine, a master-planned community where few things are out of place, is in the midst of a messy debate over a cellular telephone company’s plan to install antennas that local residents say would blight their neighborhood.
Sprint said the equipment would improve coverage in the city’s Turtle Rock neighborhood, which is on a hill. But after the company negotiated for two years with the Planning Commission, the panel rejected Sprint’s application last month, siding with residents who complained that the antennas were ugly.
The company appealed to the City Council, which will debate the issue July 11, and Mayor Beth Krom said the outcome was uncertain. Some city officials fear a lawsuit if Sprint does not get its way.
Irvine is the latest Southern California battleground between Sprint and cities and counties with ordinances that the company says hamper its efforts to use public rights of way, such as streetlight poles, to improve customer service. Sprint won lawsuits against Palos Verdes Estates and La Canada Flintridge after the cities had rejected applications for cellular antenna installations on grounds that the equipment was too ugly. The company has four lawsuits pending against San Diego County.
On May 4, Irvine planning commissioners voted 3 to 1 to deny the permit. Two weeks later they rejected a similar request by Verizon. Cities nationwide have been rejecting cellphone towers for aesthetic reasons, arguing that they have a responsibility to protect citizens from unsightly structures. The wireless industry is fighting back through mywireless.org, an industry-sponsored site.
In Irvine, residents say the 3-foot-tall, 5-inch-wide antennas would be an eyesore.
“Irvine is a carefully planned community. We have restrictions on what you can and can’t do with antennas. It has to do with aesthetics. That’s why we don’t have power poles in Irvine,” said Chriss Erickson, one of the residents who lobbied the city to reject Sprint’s application.
Sprint proposed attaching cell panels to streetlight poles and burying the power equipment, with the rest of the utilities. The company wants to install two panels on each of 10 streetlight poles.
Planning Commissioner Doug Sheldon said he agreed with residents that Sprint should explore alternatives to streetlight poles.
The problem, said Sprint attorney Michael Shonafelt, is that aesthetics are subjective.
Sprint spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy said the company “is trying to make the equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. But it’s a Catch-22 situation. People want better cell service and hate it when they drop a call, but they don’t like the way the cell equipment looks.”
Looming over the dispute is a January ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that says cities cannot block the construction of cellphone towers simply because they are ugly. The court’s opinion came in a lawsuit Sprint filed against La Canada Flintridge when the city denied it permits for a residential site.
Attorneys on both sides disagree whether the ruling applies just to that case or if it can be applied to other cities with similar ordinances.
Sheldon said a Sprint attorney “made it a point” of telling the Planning Commission about the court’s decision, a move he interpreted as a warning that the company would sue if denied permission to install the antennas. “Maybe it wasn’t a threat. But it was certainly posturing,” said Sheldon.
John J. Flynn, another Sprint attorney, said the company would rather compromise. “Litigation is not the preferred way to get these issues resolved,” he said. “We’re working hard to find a compromise solution.”
Adam Probolsky, an Irvine planning commissioner and Republican strategist, said the city could end up the loser if a compromise is not reached. Probolsky voted to deny Sprint’s permit, but said he fears the wireless industry’s political clout.
This year, a state Senate committee approved an industry-sponsored bill to limit local regulation when a wireless company wants to install additional antennas on a site that already has them, like a cell tower.
The bill, which has not been voted on by the full Senate, would require applications to be approved at the administrative level, without going to a city council or planning commission for a vote.
“They’re already in Sacramento and Washington, looking for ways to overcome local control. If we keep saying no, they’re going to get the state laws they want that will enable them to come back and tell us we no longer have a say-so in they matter, and they can put a cell tower wherever they want,” Probolsky said.
