Note to Council on meeting length

As we were leaving the council chamber, I said to a co-worker, "this reminds me of the good old days," meaning years ago when we would sometimes leave at 3 a.m. and there was a standing meeting for some of us on Tuesday mornings at 7:30. I can safely say I don't miss that nutty schedule!

I was at the February 2 City Council meeting presenting pro-neighborhood changes to the proposed Wireless and Cable Facilities Ordinance. I have spent over 2 years fighting to get fair treatment for the citizens of Pasadena. The City Staff acts like they are paid by the Telecommunications industry and now have a proposed Wireless and Cable Ordinance to prove their pro-industry position. At the Pasadena City Council meeting last night, citizens and neighborhood groups were understandably upset when staff presented an ordinance that offered them almost no protection and oversight, and no acknowledgment that the Ninth Circuit Court-approved County of San Diego ordinance could be adapted for Pasadena. The ordinance was not approved, and the matter was continued to the February 23, 2009 Pasadena City Council meeting. In my public comment at last night’s meeting, I criticized city staff’s recommendation to impose time limits on permit approvals for wireless facilities, even though no specific time limit regulations currently exist, and it is only the wireless lobby who wants such limits (not citizens). In my testimony: The City Staff has “folded” together the Wireless and Cable Facilities under the same 60 day time limit and has defined “telecommunications facilities” to include cable providers. The State and Federal government has already defined terms such as: telecommunications facility, ground mounted and co-location. It is inconsistent for the City of Pasadena to get creative by redefining these commonly used terms. To “fold” together the definition and application time limits, makes the proposed Title 12 amendment changes very confusing. There is a State and Federal precedent in the definition of these words. …In any good business practice you don’t give away any advantage. A “reasonable time” does not mean that the City needs to set any self-imposed time limit. The recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in the case of Sprint vs The county of San Diego reaffirms a municipal governments right to have a wireless Ordinance and to have some discretion in the placement of Wireless Facilities. Other Cities do not have a “Shot Clock” approach to permit applications this includes Santa Monica, Glendale, San Diego, LA County. A pro-industry approach to the City’s municipal codes is not good public policy. Enforcement of the Municipal Codes should be a priority of the City and should not have to be policed or demanded by its constituents. A common sense and good business policy is not to give any advantage away you don’t have to, especially to the Telecom Industry. The City of Pasadena needs a protective and strong wireless ordinance, as much as State and Federal laws will allow. Time is up on the concept of the Shot Clock for Wireless Facilities in the City of Pasadena. Along with last nights meeting I have spent many nights burning the midnight oil doing research and attending City meetings. The City Staff seems to have an agenda and is misleading the City Council to believe that what little rights we have must be given away to corporate interests. Who is the City Staff really working for? p.s. I have been to day time meetings for other cell tower hearings in La County and these meetings are difficult for working people to attend. If you can't show up, you can't voice your opinion. The evening meetings allow working people to have a voice.

Dude, you get paid to report this crap. Don't like it? Go back to making Big Macs for $8.25 an hour. Just stop whining about it! Mike

Did our little mans miss out on his sleepy time?

You last two guys are missing the point. Yeah, Dan gets paid to be there (or at least to report on what's going on--I don't know if he's salaried or hourly). But your typical voter is NOT paid to be there. It's tough he enough to have to sacrifice a weeknight to civic involvement. Having to stay until after 1am is just crazy, particularly if you need to get to work the next morning.

Isn't it scary that The Pasadena City Council will vote on an issue as important as the Telecom Ordinance without understanding it? Isn't it scary that the Pasadena City manager wants a Telecom Ordinance which will produce the fewest lawsuits? What happened to public input and open meetings required by the PUC? Why should 3 minutes at a city council meeting and one open planning meeting be enough when we residents have so much more to offer? If City Hall does not have the time for more citizen input on such important issues, as cell towers in residential neighborhoods, then just lock the doors, close it down and let the corporate big boys run our city, because that's what will happen if this ordinance passes as it now stands.