The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-11-18 Naomi Melemed - Resources From: Naomi Melamed To: LPCtestimonv Subject: Re: Bill 194 support testimony attachment for Naomi Melamed item 8 Date: Monday, November 18,2024 7:33:26 PM Here are my attached resources mentioned in my testimony today: POLICIES & ORDINANCES Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice, Scientists for Wired Technologyand Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources utilized on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information. In addition, Americans For Responsible Technology has created a Sample Small Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several- although not all- of these issues. Please download their model ordinance and utilize their extensive resources at this link. New York White Plains, New York Wireless Ordinance • In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values, and aesthetic qualities of White Plains streets and neighborhoods, the following setback provision shall apply: residential districts, a minimum of 250 feet from the nearest structure; • Notifications to property owners located within 500 feet shall be written in a factual manner devoid of marketing promotion and approved by the Commissioner of Public Works; • All small wireless facilities... shall at all times be operated in compliance with the RF standards established by the Federal Communications Commission. These RF safety standards shall apply to the aggregate emissions of co-located and nearby facilities not just the emissions of a single antenna; • Liability insurance without a pollution exclusion, pollution being defined as any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal pollutant, irritant or contaminant including but not limited to artificially produced electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields and all artificially produced ionizing and non-ionizing radiation; • The following unique clause was also inserted: no new small wireless facilities, as defined in 47 CFR 11.6002 (1), shall be approved unless the applicant can establish that failure to approve such an application would violate federal or state law. This clause was inserted to allow the City of White Plains to deny an application if federal law continues to uphold the `significant gap' provision. At the same time, it allows the Clty to approve an antenna if the law changes; • Link to White Plains New York Ordinance PDF Ithaca New York Ordinance • A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet) • A 300 foot setback between antennas and homes (old code: 0 feet) • Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna, proven by `in-kind' testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls) • Clarifying that an applicant's claim that it needs the proposed tower for "future capacity" is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a significant gap in coverage • Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas • Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed antennas • Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion • Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the City at the expense of the applicant • Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public • Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA • Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas, including any on private homes (OTARD) • Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near wireless facilities • Requiring that the submittal of key items by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of perjury • Link to Ithaca New York Wireless Ordinance PDF Massachusetts Randolph MA 500 foot setback from any residence or business. Randolph requires a certified engineer to take radio frequency radiation readings of the tower once a year and requires the tower company to recertify it's tower every year. Link to Code Lunenburg, MA 500 foot setbacks from any residence. Link to Code Great Barrington MA has 500 foot setbacks away from residences AND their zoning ordinances state; "Towers and personal wireless service facilities shall be located so as to minimize the following potential impacts: Safety from excessive electromagnetic radiation, in case the tower or personal wireless service facility is found to exceed the FCC guidelines." https://ecode360.com/28653470 Stockbridge MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school, park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence. https://townofstockbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TOWN-OF- STOCKBRIDGE-MASSACHUSETTS-Zoning-Bylaws-2017.pdf Florida RESOLUTION NO. 2021-58: RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN APPLICATION OF VERIZON/TILSON TECHNOLOGY FOR A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AT 3 LIGGETT ROAD IN THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE, COUNTY OF OCEAN The conditional requirement for deployment in Lavallette, and the City expressly made this a condition precedent before deployment: "The applicant shall obtain certification from the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Department of Defense demonstrating that the installation does not emit RF frequencies which may interfere with avionics of any approaching civil or military aircraft." The City also requires the applicant to provide RF meters used by their technicians and training the City employees. Arkansas Booneville, Arkansas • Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones • Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018 Danville, California Proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07: Wireless Communication Facilities • Aesthetic requirements (design guidelines may be developed and amended from time to time to clarify aesthetic and public safety goals and standards) • Utilities must be underground to extent feasible. "Meters, panels, disconnect switches and other associated improvements must be placed in inconspicuous locations to the extent possible". • Permits valid for initial period of 10 years max • "Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right-of- way." • Would allow small cells in residential districts: —"All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures so as not to create substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impacts. " —Property owners within 300 ft of proposed site must be notified Danville, California: Ordinance No. 2018-07 Wireless Communications Facilities PDF http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/ Encinitas, California • Urgency Ordinance • 5G opponents cite health concerns in urging city to limit wireless antennas Fairfax, California Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network Ordinance No.819 An Urgency Ordinance Enacting Title 20 ("Telecommunications") of the Fairfax Municipal Code to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities [small cell devices a.k.a. 5G] . Redlined version . News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G Los Altos, California • installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods is prohibited • 500 foot setbacks for small cells for multi-family residences in commercial districts • 500 ft separation from schools • 1500 ft separation between nodes • Los Altos Urgency Ordinance: . Los Altos Citing Guidelines: This ordinance was passed in 2019. Then the Los Altos City Council then rejected 12 applications from AT&T and one from Verizon because they didn't meet those rules. In response, both cell companies sued in federal court, arguing the denial wasn't based on evidence. The lawsuit is still pending while consultants hired by the city of Los Altos worked on a new ordinance. The new ordinance, which was reviewed by the Los Altos Planning Commission on Thursday, says that cell nodes can go in residential streets as long as they are near a main road, within 200 to 500 feet. According to WireAmerica.org: The new Los Altos ordinance "says the city will grant exceptions if a cell company has evidence they need a site in a residential neighborhood to eliminate a significant gap in telecommunications coverage. The company would have to demonstrate, with substantial evidence in the public record, that not putting the antenna at that location would result in an effective prohibition of telecommunications service — a tough row to hoe for Wireless companies because everyone can make a wireless phone call on every carrier network in Los Altos today. The ordinance has several other restrictions on things like height, noise and Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) design. Attorney Deborah Fox, who is representing the city against AT&T and Verizon, said the ordinance is "state of the art" and she is confident that it meets federal law." Marin County, California Draft as of June 21, 2019 The city is mapped to show where the cell towers are allowed.Marin drafts preferences for 5G rollout,Point Reyes Light . "Marin's draft rules select industrial, commercial or agricultural sites, or sites near public facilities, as preferred locations for the antennas; residential and mixed-use sites and areas within 1 ,500 feet of schools and daycare centers are the least-preferred locations.The draft favors placing antennas on existing street poles or traffic lights, versus new poles or small cell facilities. It limits antennas to one per pole and stipulates they must be at least 1 ,000 feet apart. It also includes aesthetic requirements that aim to blend equipment, and prohibits equipment on historic buildings." Mill Valley, California Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018 • New or updated facilities prohibited in residential zones. Commercial only. • Facilities installed on poles in public right of way must be 1 ,500 feet apart • Design, noise standards • Facilities in public right of way that would interfere with future projects / improvements must be relocated • Promptly remove facilities when no longer needed; replace with smaller facilities as feasible • Defend and indemnify the City • Mill Valley, California: Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018 • Tech Crunch" Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns • Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community Palo Alto, California City Council voted unanimously to approve a Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff had proposed. Council also voted unanimously in favor of a motion to direct City Staff "to come back as soon as possible but [in] no more than [one year], with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers" (and e summarizing): 1. Disfavoring the placement of cell towers in, for example, residential zones and near schools; 2. Minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools, and minimum distances between cell towers; 3. Creating a list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites for macro cell towers (i.e., as an alternative to small cell node cell towers next to people's homes); Council also voted to direct City Staff to return to Council with a recommendation for "best practices" with respect to inspecting antennas. "Seeking to strike a balance between federal requirements and resident concerns, Palo Alto approved on Monday night new rules for reviewing the flurry of applications that the city has been receiving from telecommunication companies seeking to install antennas on local streetlights and utility poles. By a 6-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Tanaka absent, the council adopted a set of "objective standards" for wireless communication facilities, including a menu of preferred design alternatives for radio equipment and antennas. And in a nod to the dozens of residents who have raised alarms about the proliferation of cellular facilities on their blocks, the council launched a new effort to further restrict where such technology can be installed and to explore "minimum distance" requirements for wireless equipment in relation to local schools and homes." Palo Alto looks to distance cell antennas from homes, schools Palos Verdes, California According to citizens of the city, after citizen uproar, Crown Castle began complying with municipal aesthetic requirements and moving proposed locations out of neighborhoods and away from homes. The ordinance has four key components, if these are met the site will almost certainly be approved: • Minimal antenna size with screening • All accessory equipment underground (everything except the antenna) • Combining sites with existing vertical infrastructure (streetlights, traffic signals, etc.) • Strict location restrictions, no sites on local, residential streets without an exception granted If they don't comply with these, then the applicant must demonstrate the site is required to fill a significant gap and there is no less intrusive alternative to receive an exception. This is not simply checking a box (i.e. the applicant just claiming these conditions exist) but has to be demonstrated to the City planning commission via engineering analysis. Palos Verdes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 — WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Petaluma, California Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma • Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects • Protect visual character; don't create visual blight • Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects • Commercial or industrial zones • Antennas must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight. • Servicing wires must be installed within the width of the existing utility. • All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole. • Dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately. • 1 ,500 feet minimum between each Small Cell facility. • No Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence. • An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way. • Petaluma, California: Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma PDF Ross Valley, California Wireless Telecommunications Facilities • Modeled after Mill Valley's • Adopted regulations prohibit facilities in residential and downtown zoning district. Facilities proposed in the public right-of-way subject to separate design criteria. • Limits height and width of facilities to a minimum necessary for property function. • Maximum height of 24 feet above the height of the existing utility pole and 7 feet above a street light standard. • Requires equipment to be placed underground. Ross Valley, California: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities PDF SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA Council Policy • People within 300 feet of proposed antenna will be notified • Town is entitled to employ independent consultant at applicant's expense to evaluate exceptions • San Anselmo, California PDF San Diego County, California Draft ordinance (5-31-2019) for small cell antenna sites in San Diego County has the following requirement: "SCWs shall not be located within 1 ,000 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, or churches. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall be a straight line measured from the closest property lines." San Diego County Ordinance San Jose, California Negotiated agreement "officials made improved access to areas with low internet participation a precondition for reducing fees...agreement set tiered costs per network node installation, with lower fees for companies deploying more nodes. Along with this incentive, three companies pledged to contribute a total of$24 million over the next decade to a digital inclusion fund." (GovTech) • News Stories The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control Suisin CA 500 ft setback and all facilities permitted pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the ADA. San Anselmo, CA 300ft setback residents notified Calabasas, CA 1000 feet setback for small cells. Westlake, CA 500 feet setback San Clemente, CA 500 feet setback San Rafael, California City Council Report Dec. 5, 2018 front page news story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/04/san- rafael-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/ Dec. 18, 2018 front page story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/18/san-rafael- adopts-u rgency-ord inance-to-keep-gri p-on-5g-prol iferation/ • City Staff Report: URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 (ZONING) AND ACCOMPANYING POLICY RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES • San Rafael, California: December 2018 Documentation for City Action on 12/18/2018 "1 want the city and county government to clearly say no to the FCC,"said resident Arthur Saft/as. "No 5G installations of any kind in Marin, until it can be proven safe for us and the environment."- San Rafael, Calif., Officials Work to Tighten 5G Regulation • San Rafael Residents Take Pre-emptive Strike Against 5G Sebastopol, California City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance (Recommended) • Purpose: Institute a moratorium on applications for small cells in the public right-of-way until adoption of a permanent ordinance Previous regulations on telecommunications facilities (according to the recommended urgency ordinance, these did not anticipate 5G and do not address installation of telecommunications facilities in the right-of-way): • Purpose: Protect visual character, inhabitants, environmental resources Cannot be located in any required yard setback area • Facilities within 400 feet of residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals etc must comply with NIER standards • Minor facilities must be 75 feet away from a "residential dwelling unit" except 1 single family residence on the property where it is located Sebastopol, California: City Council Agenda Item Report and Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Small Cells in the Public Right of Way Other Links • http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/ • http://mystreetmychoice.com/sebastopol.html Sonoma, California Report and Urgency Ordinance On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance. 500 ft setback and residents notified. 'Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared." • The City also has a Small Cell Tower page. • Sonoma California Ordinance on 5G WALNUT CITY, CALIFORNIA • "Telecommunication towers and antennas shall not be located within 1 ,500 feet of any school (nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school), trail, park or outdoor recreation area, sporting venues, and residential zones." • Screenshot of Ordinance from Walnut Website, • To see the code online go to https://gcode.us/codes/walnut/, Click on "Title 6: Planning and Zoning" Click on "Chapter 6.88 ANTENNAS AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES", Click on "6.88.060 Design standards, See Item "O. Warren, Connecticut This policy defines adequate coverage and adequate capacity. It details that it was designed "to locate towers and/or antennas in a manner which protects property values, as well as the general safety, health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Warren and all those who visit this community, minimize the total number and height of towers throughout Warren, and provide standards and requirements for the regulation, placement, design, appearance, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of telecommunications facilities and towers." • "Coverage is considered to be "adequate" within that area surrounding a Base Station where the predicted or measured median field strength of the transmitted signal is such that the majority of the time, transceivers properly installed and operated will be able to communicate with the base station. In the case of cellular communications in a rural environment like Warren, this would be a signal strength of at least -90 dBm for at least 75% of the coverage area. It is acceptable for there to be holes within the area of Adequate Coverage where the signal is less than -90 dBm, as long as the signal regains its strength to greater than -90 dBm further away from the Base Station." • "Capacity is considered to be "adequate" if the Grade of Service (GOS) is p.05 or better for median traffic levels offered during the typical busy hour, as assessed by direct measurement of the Personal Wireless Service Facility in question." TOWN OF WARREN SECTION 29 — SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: FACILITIES AND TOWERS December 11, 2012, Warren website link BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Town of Burlington Policy Applications for Small Cell Wireless Installations, October 22, 2018 • Small Cell Committee drafted a policy with annual recertification fees. Verizon withdrew its application, concerned by the precedent it would set and questioning its legality. • Verizon attorney Mr. Klasnick stated "My client respectfully requests to withdraw the petition rather than have a fee," he said.(BCATTV) The Town of Burlington Policy / Application for Small Cell Wireless Installations approved by the Burlington Board of Selectmen on October 22, 2018 PDF. According to BCATTV Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees: "This week Selectman Jim Tigges, the board's representative on the Small Cells Committee, said the group had come up with a new policy for small cell applications. The policy contains a number of provisions while filing an application, including setting installation fees, listing the town department that must receive a copy for review and setting up the timeline for approval. The Verizon application, however, would not be subject to the policy because it was submitted before its adoption. However, Tigges and the committee did have a number of conditions for the project it recommended to the board. They included: — No apparatus on double poles — An agreement to annual recertification — Equipment shall be located on top of the poles, colored similarly to the poise so as to blend in. — Equipment shall not interfere with other equipment on the pole, nor obstruct or interfere with access to or operation of street lights or traffic controls devices on the pole. — Poles must meet ADA standards." -NEWS: Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees, October 23, 2018 Holyoke, Massachusetts • Draft policy $500 fee for city inspection of rooftop poles/roofs every 2 years • Holyoke has submitted an order from councilor Bartley Roman to limit equipment and require $500 apiece per small cell—$500 may exceed FCC limits. At-large councilor Rebecca Lisi, on behalf of a Holyoke resident, recently submitted to the town lawyer a copy of the ordinance drafted by Pittsfield. Information from https://www.lasttreelaws.com/ordinances.html Pittsfield, Massachusetts Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities • Telecom company must prove prefered site/existing structure does not work • Above ground aesthetic requirements • Sound and light restrictions with emphasis on industry proving compliance Pittsfield, Massachusetts: Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities PDF Little Silver, New Jersey • Carriers should provide notice to property owners within five hundred (500') feet of the proposed Telecommunications Facility. • The applicant must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Borough that no existing personal wireless Telecommunication Service Facility within a reasonable distance can accommodate needs. • Indemnification clause: "Each license grantee shall indemnify and hold the Borough and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of, resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the grantee or its affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its Telecommunications Facilities, and in providing or offering Telecommunications Services over the facilities, whether such acts or omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Chapter or by a grant agreement made or entered into pursuant to this Chapter." • "Little Silver New Jersey: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 16A "LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE" OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE BOROUGH OF LITTLE SILVER, COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, STATE OF NEW JERSEY AMENDING SECTION 16A-2 "DEFINITIONS" AND 16A-5 GENERAL PROVISION ADDING NEW SUBSECTION 5-28 "PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES" New York Ithaca , New York Ithaca's code of 250 feet • A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet) • A 250 foot setback between antennas and homes/schools (old code: 8 feet) • Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna, proven by `in-kind' testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls) • Clarifying that an applicant's claim that it needs the proposed tower for "future capacity" or to "improve coverage" is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a significant gap in coverage • Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas • Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed antennas • Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion • Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the City at the expense of the applicant • Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public • Allowing for revocability (a clause allowing the voiding of any contract requiring its modification in the event of a regulatory change) • Mandating certified mail notices of any proposed tower be sent to people living near a proposed site before approval, paid for by the applicant. • Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA • Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas, including any on private homes (aimed at the OTARD challenge) • Deputizing any citizen to test for RF emissions • Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near wireless facilities • Requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of perjury • Download PDF of Ithaca code here. Scarsdale, New York Scarsdale, New York Passed a Wireless Ordinance To Limit Cell Antennas 500 Feet From Homes, Schools and Daycares 1. Pre- and post-installation RF testing requirements by independent contractor; additionally, routine annual monitoring 2. Pre-notification of small cell application to residents within a 1 ,000-foot radius of proposed installation 3. Pre-notification of small cell application to President-At-Large of the neighborhood association and to the president of neighborhood association in which the wireless facility is proposed 4. Location preferences (restricted zones) that require special exceptions for installations • Any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit • Any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or school • Any location within 500 feet from a house of worship • Any location within parkland 5. Village is insured against any liability for personal injury or property damage or claims pertaining to RF exposure 6. Existence of appeals process (de novo hearing in front of Planning Board) Copake New York (Link to Copake NY code) Pretesting and post testing by RF engineer Annual monitoring of RF emissions by the independent RF engineer using actual field measurements Hempstead, New York Wireless Communications Facilities • Requires a special use permit for cell towers that encourages location of new wireless facilities so as to minimize their impact on historically sensitive areas around residences, schools, houses of worship, day-care centers. Seven consideration factors are listed in order from more to least preferred, with existing towers being most preferred and new towers in residential zones least preferred. • Prohibits towers from exceeding a height that permits it to operate without artificial lighting • Allows the town to hire consultants and do inspections • Set a fee schedule of $500 per pole • Requires a 4 foot warning sign on the pole • Utilities at wireless installations should be underground when possible • Hempstead, New York: Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance eCodeChapter 142 • Other Links • https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/ • https://hempsteadny.gov/permits-and-applications/wireless-telecom-ordinance Mason, Ohio Zoning Ordinance — Wireless Communications Systems • No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of property used for residential use • Small cells must be 2000 feet apart (unless colocated) • Small cells are between 20-30 ft high (may be able to exceed 30 ft if colocated) • Every attempt shall be made to locate small cells on existing structures; if not available, within public right of way • All related equipment should be underground or wholly contained so not visible • Each facility shall consist of no more than 1 antenna/user and capable of providing communication for at least 2 users Mason, Ohio Zoning Ordinance PDF Lancaster, Pennsylvania Zoning Changes via Ordinance 9-2016 • City Council rushed through zoning changes to declare many streets off limits to new poles (said they could be much taller than existing ones) • Public Utility Commission stripped Mobilitie and other distributed-antenna companies of utility status, meaning that they would not get any more "certificates of public convenience" in Pennsylvania. Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 9-2016 PDF News Stories • http://www.philly.com/philly/business/comcast/philly-and-suburbs-brace-for- attack-of-the-small-cells-20170601 .html?arc404=true • http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/Philadelphia-Braces-For-Small-Cell- Future.html Note: This list was compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Monday, November 18th, 2024 at 4:32 PM, Naomi Melamed<hinaomi@protonmail.com> wrote: loha Commissioners, ahalo for your time and your work here reviewing an updated solution for wireless infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Blamed and I am an Hawaii Island leader for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group serving statewide for several years. We educate and support our local communities and we engage with the legislative process to promote the balance of connectivity and safety in Hawaii. We are composed of thousands of local members that care deeply for the protection of clean air space in Hawaii. would like to request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194 to the council, and allow for the council members to work out the differences between the two bills through their process. We have seen that both the PD's proposed ordinance and Bill 194 have some language to be worked out. It is unfair, despite some kinks in both bills, o favorably recommend one over the other. Especially as their was an attempt early on in the process by the council member introducing Bill 194 to collaborate -which was not honored. I appreciate that both bills ill be heard alongside one another and careful consideration will be made with regards to both of them. am not an authority on county code, but I include here links to dozens of other jurisdictions that we follow. Many of them have more strictly protective ordinances instated in their areas around the US, and similar state laws, which have stood up in court. Bill 194 is in compliance with use 47 section 332, C-7-b-4 as it is not excessive in its request for information from applicants, such as regarding the levels of EMF that they emit. Bill 194 encourages more transparency with citizens and gives valuable information, taking those who may be disabled from EMF exposer into account. I appreciate that the RF emission has a mechanism for update with each co-location. Our group has conducted a state-wide monitor of EMF emission from towers and we have found some extremely high levels, which is a genuine concern for our population, regardless of zone. s some other testifiers have noted, there was a court ruling on the federal level in 2020 stating that the FCC's failure to update their acceptable levels for EMF exposure to humans and the environment was "arbitrary and capricious" and they IGNORED (judges words) the evidence (11,000 pages of it in court!) from multiple reputable sources in heir most recent review. The FCC is under close watch at this time. Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC. It is simply asking to know what the emissions are and have a process outlined for how to go about measuring. Bill 194 was in the works for about a year. It has been crafted with careful consideration taken from a wide-range of community members and groups. Even the planning dept. was approached for collaboration, but chose to take another path. Our group was pleased to offer our expertise where appropriate, particularly as we document other jurisdictions who have enacted protective ordinances related to wireless infrastructure. Bill 194 is robust legislation as it accordingly reflects the will of the residents of this island over the desires of big business from abroad. Simultaneously, it lays out a process which allows for connectivity for all. I appreciate that two bills related to the same topic coming through he Commission can be confusing, but I encourage the Commission to favorably recommend Bill 194 and allow the elected council members to make sense of both bills upon equal ground. Technology is changing rapidly and one thing I appreciate from Bill 194 is it includes the regulation of small cells, which are a new and untested art of 5G. Small cells pose greatly increased exposure due to their uildout and must be considered in any modern-day legislation. In contrast, they are not mentioned in the Planning Director's proposed ill. This is a very important point which was not outlined in the Nov. 1st Commission meeting as a difference between the PD proposed ordinance and Bill 194. The Big Island is in great need for Bill 194 to protect the beauty, safety, ell-being, and property values of all who live on or frequent our island. Council member Evans bill goes into great detail about a fire plan, and site approval requirements, which puts me as a resident at ease. In contrast I have noticed that in the Directors bill, there are question marks about who will operate security cameras, also a lack of easements for access by the fire department, and lack of a comprehensive fire plan, despite there being other provisions. do not see it as a competition, as I support collaboration and consideration. But I must admit that after following both Bill 194 and he Directors bill, the timing of the two has been interesting, and I hope for cohesion moving forward. Thank you very much for reading my testimony. ahalo for your time and consideration, Naomi Melamed Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader Sent from Proton Mail