|
Court Cases, Ordinances & Other Documents
<br />Kreines & Kreines keeps copies of:
<br />• City/county wireless ordinances, wireless regulations,
<br />wireless policies and wireless moratoria.
<br />• Court cases (Grundman v. 360 Degree Communications
<br />Company, Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina, BellSouth
<br />Mobility v. Gwinnett County, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems
<br />v. Borough of Baldwin, Westel-Milwaukee Company v.
<br />Walworth County).
<br />• FCC Guidelines.
<br />• Telecommunications Act of 1996
<br />• General Services Administration procedures for federal
<br />sites.
<br />• California Public Utilities Commission orders for
<br />Cellular Utility Facilities.
<br />• A primer on how to meet the substantial evidence test,.
<br />These are available from Kreines & Kreines, Inc., along
<br />with back issues of Wireless Update, for the cost of copying,
<br />shipping & handling. Call us for more information.
<br />*Feds Said the Light is Red, Cities/Counties Don't
<br />be Misled
<br />The General Services Administration has issued
<br />procedures for placing personal wireless facilities on
<br />federal property. These procedures were issued as a result
<br />of an order by President Clinton to all federal departments
<br />and agencies to facilitate access to federal property for
<br />placement of personal wireless facilities.
<br />A guiding principle of these procedures is that the
<br />placement of personal wireless facilities on federal
<br />property should be done in accordance with Federal,
<br />State and local laws and regulations ... public health and
<br />safety concerns, environmental and aesthetic concerns,
<br />preservation of historic buildings and monuments."
<br />If UniSite, Inc. or another company is trying to place an
<br />antenna on federal lands (e.g., post office property) in
<br />your jurisdiction without obtaining any local permits, you
<br />may want to get a copy of these procedures.
<br />Kreines & Kreines Returns to Daly City,
<br />California for a Workshop
<br />After having completed two projects (one in the 1970s,
<br />the other in the 1980s) in Daly City, just south of San
<br />Francisco, Kreines & Kreines, Inc. was particularly
<br />honored to be asked to participate in a wireless workshop.
<br />Daly City is a "can -do" city, and the questions to
<br />Kreines & Kreines, Inc. were:
<br />• The City wants to lease public lands to the carriers.
<br />How can the City market its publicly'owned prime cell
<br />sites and regulate carriers at the same time?
<br />• The City has areas that are inappropriate for cell sites,
<br />even though the zoning ordinance might allow cell
<br />sites in these areas at this time. What do we do?
<br />The City has some areas that are conditionally
<br />acceptable for cell sites, but what are the conditions
<br />BOOK 99 PAGE
<br />and can they be established in advance of granting a
<br />Conditional Use Permit?
<br />Kreines& Kreines, Inc. provided direction to the Daly
<br />City Council and staff on Halloween night. Hopefully the
<br />suggestions were all treats and no tricks.
<br />CPUC Reconsiders its Pre-emption Role: Come
<br />to a December Workshop
<br />The June issue of Wireless Update announced that the
<br />California Public Utilities Commission adopted General
<br />Order 159A, a relaxed version of GO 159. At the time,
<br />Wireless Update noted that pre-emption (the real version,
<br />not the FCC variety) was possible with GO 159A, but the
<br />CPUC was not rushing to force California cities and
<br />counties to approve cell site applications.
<br />As certain carriers begin to encounter increased local
<br />government resistance to applications for cell sites, they
<br />are urging the CPUC to reconsider its policies on pre-
<br />emption. Consequently, the CPUC is holding a one -day
<br />workshop in San Francisco to gather testimony from local
<br />governments. The workshop is open to everyone.
<br />The workshop is planned for December, although a
<br />date has not been announced. Please contact Kreines &
<br />Kreines, Inc. for the date, time and location.
<br />Ted Kreines, AICD, will be at the workshop. He will
<br />incorporate into his remarks comments sent to Wireless
<br />Update by readers. Please send any written comments
<br />you want included to Kreines & Kreines. This workshop
<br />will be reported on in a future issue of Wireless Update.
<br />Play it Again, Walworth County
<br />A Wisconsin Appeals Court judge ordered Walworth
<br />County to reconsider the Walworth County Park and
<br />Planning Commission's decision to deny Cellular One a
<br />permit to construct a telecommunications tower in Westel-
<br />Milwaukee Company, Inc. v. Walworth County.
<br />Cellular One applied for a conditional use permit to
<br />build the 200 -foot tower in March 1994. The County
<br />denied the CUP because a neighboring resident felt the
<br />location of the tower would reduce the value of their
<br />property and was too close to their residence.
<br />The trial court ruled that the record for the denial
<br />contained sufficient evidence for the denial of the CUP.
<br />Cellular One appealed.
<br />While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
<br />enacted after Walworth County's denial, the court ordered
<br />the County to reconsider the Cellular One application in
<br />light of the Telecommunications Act The court based its
<br />judgment on conserving administrative and judicial
<br />resources. If the County's denial of the CUP was upheld,
<br />then Cellular One could resubmit its application to the
<br />County anyway and the County would have to base its
<br />new decision on the Telecommunications Act this time
<br />around. Copies of this decision are available from Kreines
<br />& Kreines for the cost of copying, postage and handling.
<br />Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cidds & Counties on Wireless Manning
<br />58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
<br />phone. (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, e-mail: wireless.update@worldnetatt.net
<br />10
<br />NOVEMBER 13, 1996
<br />
|