City Council continues appeal on Sprint antenna near Carpenter Avenue School, seeks district representation

The Los Angeles City Council on Oct. 17 continued consideration of an appeal by Sprint seeking permission to install facade-mounted antennas and rooftop equipment cabinets on a commercial building near Carpenter Avenue School, after extended public comment and legal briefing.

Zoning administrator Albert Naidini told the council that under a specific-plan exemption he served as hearing examiner and recommended approval, noting he had conducted a public hearing and that the proposal was largely an aesthetic and equipment-placement question. "The Federal Telecommunications Act of the United States of 1996 precludes local jurisdictions ... from considering health impacts," Naidini said, adding that his recommendation required equipment cabinets be reduced in size and lowered below the building parapet to reduce sight-line impacts.

Mary Birch of the City Attorney’s Office told council members the city is "preempted from regulating based on health," and that whether the city’s findings would be supported by substantial evidence would determine vulnerability to litigation.

Neighbors and school staff urged the council to uphold the Area Planning Commission’s denial. Heidi Brown, who identified herself as a teacher and assistant principal at Carpenter Avenue School, said the school is an "anchor of the neighborhood" and said neighbors had repeatedly been organized in opposition. Speakers representing the applicant said Sprint had surveyed alternative sites, argued it had documented coverage and capacity issues along the Ventura Boulevard corridor, and said the chosen site was the only commercially available location whose landlord would lease roof space.

Sheila Berman, a member of the South Valley Area Planning Commission, said the APC denied the request based on specific-plan findings and concerns that the building already exceeded the specific-plan height allowances; the APC concluded another telecommunications installation on that building would worsen a nonconforming condition. Attorneys and representatives for both sides disputed whether the APC’s record relied on impermissible health findings or on permissible planning and design findings.

After debate about the absence of an elected representative for Council District 2, and requests from multiple council members to allow the district’s eventual councilmember to participate, the council voted to continue the matter. Council President Reyes called for the roll; the motion to continue for six months (to April 19) or until the Council District 2 vacancy is filled passed on a voice/roll call showing 11 ayes.

Discussion points on the record included: whether Sprint provided RF engineering data to support a coverage gap claim (neighbors said it was not presented in a timely fashion), whether the city may rely on aesthetic and land-use findings under the federal preemption on health/radiation considerations, and operational conditions (equipment cabinet placement and noise mitigation) that staff recommended.

The continuance leaves the APC denial intact for now; council members and staff asked legal counsel to prepare answers on the extent of the council’s authority under federal law and to review the administrative record so the council can consider whether the APC denial rests on legally permissible findings.

Next steps noted by members: return the item after the District 2 seat is filled (or April 19), with supplemental legal analysis and any additional RF coverage evidence the applicant chooses to submit.

Votes at a glance: motion to continue the Sprint appeal — approved; roll call: 11 ayes.