2024-12-02 Debra Green #3 & #4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In implementing regulations, local jurisdictions: 1) Can't discriminate among providers 2) Can't prohibit personal wireless service 3) Must act upon any application in a reasonable amount of time 4) Can't regulate on the basis of environmental effects of radiation, to the extent that they still have to comply with FCC emission guidelines (which haven't been updated since 1996 when smart phones and WiFi didn't exist!) 5) Must document in writing with substantial evidence any decision to deny an application Bill 194 fully complies with these requirements and any suggestions to the contrary are entirely arbitrary. Sadly, the former Director, Zendo Kern, gave Bill 194 an unfavorable recommendation while advancing his own ordinance, an ordinance that goes far beyond simply updating the code to bring it into compliance with state law, a law that's actually been on the books for years. We couldn't help but notice that timing. Council members are elected to enact legislation in a democratic process -we elect them and they represent our needs. Cindy Evans who authored Bill 194 consulted with us, and other community groups, over the course of a year to craft her ordinance. Months of research went into it, using ordinances already adopted in other jurisdictions as examples, and contacting officials at the Federal, State and County levels to make sure it met all legal and policy requirements. It was cross-checked, double-checked and re-checked. It's a good, solid piece of legislation that aligns with others across the country. It deserves a favorable recommendation. In contrast, we couldn't help but notice that under the "Pubic Comments" section of the former Director's proposed ordinance, he listed nothing but telecommunications corporations and telecommunications advocacy groups. There was no actual input from the community- only from telecom. Below I address each of the concerns the former Director used to justify his unfavorable recommendation and show how the majority of them are unfounded. 1) Bill 194 Section 25-2-74(1) This Subsection requires a plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or tower and all buildings and uses within 300 feet thereof. The former Director claimed this requirement is excessive without providing any rationale for his assessment. This is ironic because he stated that lack of a detailed rationale for this requirement was a "particularly significant" concern and grounds for an unfavorable recommendation. Since both Bill 194 and the former Director's proposed ordinance contain setback requirements for residences and schools, one could easily see how a plot plan showing buildings and uses could be very helpful. Further, the rationale for this requirement could have been easily attained had the former Director simply asked, as the draft