Councilmen believe current policies provide enough oversight
Morgan Hill City councilmen decided against banning cell phone towers in Morgan Hill while staff creates a policy on the often controversial towers this week.
The decision removes a potential roadblock for three cell tower plans currently seeking city approval.
Councilmen began to contemplate banning cell towers last month while drafting a new policy after some local residents protested an application to build a tower near Jackson Park. The residents had read in the Morgan Hill Times that Sprint PCS sought approval to construct the tower. After residents protested in September, the Utilities and Environment subcommittee suggested the city enact a moratorium while staff crafted a permanent policy.
The council denied the move 4-0 Wednesday night.
Councilman Greg Sellers said the city already has a number of rules governing cell towers and an approval process that allows public input before any towers are built. He said he didn’t believe the issue was grave enough to warrant a moratorium.
“I think we’ve got these applications that have already been submitted with the assumptions that the rules are already in place,” Sellers said. “I think we ought to let them go through the process at that point … in the interest of fairness and equity.”
Some of the residents who opposed the Sprint PCS tower said they worried the towers could affect the health of people who lived near the proposed site and children who played in the park. Scott Dunham, development manager for T-Mobile’s South Bay Area, told the council the Federal Communications Commission has ruled health concerns cannot be a major reason for cities to deny cell towers. Cell phone towers have not been connected to health problems.
Dunham said T-Mobile has plans to build one tower and modify two others to improve roaming capabilities lost when AT&T merged with Cingular recently. He said by imposing a moratorium now, the city was giving the company’s competitors an unfair advantage.
Acting city attorney Dan Siegel cautioned council members about considering a moratorium. He noted, a moratorium needed to be very specific, and required a 4/5 vote of the council; not a simple majority vote. He suggested that the council examine the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process.
“The council has to decide whether there is a problem that merits the moratorium. … Is the CUP process working? If not, stop it,” advised Siegel.
Councilman Steve Tate said he felt the subcommittee needed to be more specific regarding the objective of the moratorium, while Councilman Larry Carr believed the city has measures already in place, such as public hearings, that would prevent cell towers from being placed in areas objectionable to residents.
Currently, a proposal to place a cell tower on public land requires a cell phone provider to enter a lease agreement with the city and city council approval. A proposal to place a cell phone tower on private land, however, would only need a conditional use permit and approval by the Planning Commission. Such a proposal would only go to the city council if it is appealed.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy, a member of the Utilities and Environment Subcommittee, suggested forming a subcommittee or task force of residents, planning department officials and other experts to further study health issues concerning cell towers and aesthetic concerns about their placement instead of the moratorium.
Councilman Mark Grzan, who heads the Utilities and Environment Subcommittee, abstained from voting, making it clear he was not happy at the lack of support from his fellow council members. The city has no ordinance regarding cell phone towers now, Grzan said, and the moratorium is needed until the council approves one.
“What you’re doing is you’re allowing continuance of cell towers to be built in our community, regardless of the public’s concern, regardless of what other committees have done and you’re putting this community at risk,” he said.
Planning Director Jim Rowe said the city has developed a list of criteria for cell towers over the years in lieu of an ordinance.
“I propose a moratorium and quickly as we can, develop a policy,” Grzan said. “It would show to the community that we take their concerns seriously and that we are not allowing our own personal assessment of what the public has done or what they can do.”
