City Council passes telecom ordinance despite protests

S.F. streamlines process for new facilities

After almost three hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council early Thursday morning unanimously passed an ordinance to streamline the review process for telecommunications facilities. The proposal drew strident and sometimes angry opposition from residents despite the possibility the ordinance will make way for better broadband service in a city where spotty cell reception is a widespread concern.

Dozens of residents spoke against the new ordinance — the vast majority of whom said their opposition stemmed from a belief that radio frequencies are a threat to human health. Many angrily booed City Attorney Kelley Brennan when she began to cite “tens of thousands of studies” compiled by the World Health Organization over several decades that have shown “no major public health risks” from electromagnetic fields.

As the jeering audience continued to interrupt Brennan, Mayor Javier Gonzales repeatedly requested respect from the packed council chamber and warned of ejections. One woman stood and said, “Throw me out then!” Aside from the research mentioned by Brennan, federal law explicitly prohibits the city from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects — including possible health effects. The new ordinance was intended at least in part, Brennan said, to help the city hew closer to federal rules.

This fact did not satisfy opponents, some of whom called on the city to flagrantly disobey federal law. Councilors said they were obligated to uphold it.

“This ordinance is a reasonable effort to accommodate federal law,” said Councilor Peter Ives, who co-sponsored

the measure with Councilor Mike Harris.

Councilor Joseph Maestas called the federal regulations “asinine” and said the Federal Communications Commission has put councilors in a difficult position by narrowing the permissible time frame to approve telecom structures.

“This [regulatory] environment is getting worse,” he said, “and this is symptomatic of that.”

City councilors earlier this year passed a resolution identifying expanded telecommunications services as a critical component of economic development, particularly antenna installations in public rights of way.

But Gonzales, along with a few councilors, cited the federal restrictions on what the city can and cannot regulate as a frustration.

“This is a fight we have to take on — to not surrender but to continue to advance the interests of our community,” Gonzales said. One possible measure to continue that conversation, he and others said, would be the reinstitution of a focused telecommunications advisory committee; the city once had one, but it was zeroed out by the new ordinance.

Others who spoke Wednesday night — including some who stuck out the discussion to its conclusion after midnight — expressed concern that more antennas and less public input on where they might go will detract from Santa Fe’s appearance and residents’ ability to stop unwanted new structures.

Residents “don’t have faith in the city protecting them from this,” said Karen Heldmeyer, a former city councilor.

The new city policy routes some smaller-scale modifications and preapproved design applications for telecom structures through city land-use staff rather than the Planning Commission. The ordinance also changes the public notification process for such facilities. These changes have inflamed opponents, who seize on them as a dilution of oversight.

But Marcos Martinez, an assistant city attorney, pointed out that anyone hoping to establish a telecommunications franchise will still have to go through the city’s committee review process, which would allow multiple opportunities for public input.

Harris said that although they did not appear before the council in force, many people in the community view improvements to the city’s cell coverage as essential for both regular business and personal communication.

“Quite frankly, the city needs to take a stand,” Harris said. “It’s our responsibility to clarify and codify what we think is an appropriate regulation and appropriate code.”