HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-02 Adele Henkel to 2024-12-02 Zain Yamani (37) Additional Testimony Bill 194From:Adele Henkel
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 2:09:10 PM
Dear People,
Please give a FAVORABLE Recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance,
BILL 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment
of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the
code.
Thank you for taking our legitimate concerns to heart!
Adele Henkel
Kailua Kona
From:Alison Yahna
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:23:43 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
As a beekeeper on the Island I can attest to the harmful effects of (particularly 5G)
electromagnetic pollution honeybees as well as other native species of insects, birds
and bats who are sensitive to and utilize geo-magnetism for navigation, migration and
other important life processes.
Please consider the health of all living beings and the 'aina which gives us life, and
support the regulation of these powerful structures.
From:Angelika Hofmann
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 6:42:12 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. -- Aloha~!~Angelika ("Angie") Hofmann
From:Anne A
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Bill 194
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 1:26:43 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County
Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances
similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State
laws and offers important updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Anne Allison, Hawaii resident
From:aura wright
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:57:18 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you for your consideration. U.S. Citizen in Tennessee
B. L. Wright
From:Brigitte Otto
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 4:11:03 PM
Aloha,
Please support the County-Council-proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Numerous local jurisdictions have implemented similar ordinances to regulate the installation of towers
and antennas. Bill 194 is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and adds important updates
to the code.
Mahalo,
Brigitte Otto
From:Cindy Evans
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Testimony WPC Dec.5, 1p.m. agenda
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 6:12:33 AM
Attachments:Evans Testimony Bill 194.docx
Please see attached (4 pages) testimony for:
PL-CCI-2024-000009 (Bill 194)
1
Testimony PL-CCI-2024-000009 (Bill 194)
December 1, 2024
Aloha Commissioners,
I write as the author of Bill 194 and Councilmember for Council District 9, North Kohala and South
Kohala, and ask for your favorable recommendation.
During the fall of 2023 I submitted a draft bill (now known as Bill 194) for review by Corporation
Counsel. The bill was a response to numerous meetings with residents of the North Kohala and
South Kohala communities who had concerns about lack of requirements for installation of cell
towers and antennas. The proposed application requirements and regulations for the installation
and up-keep of infrastructure should accommodate this ever-changing technology.
The biggest consideration when I wrote the bill was to find out what a county level ordinance could
legally do and not do. I did a broad search of local ordinances across the country for tried and
tested regulations. I talked with the FCC(Federal Communication Commission) , FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration) , HUD (Federal Housing and Urban Development), DHHL (State
Department of Hawaiian Homelands), DLNR (State Department of Land and Natural Resources,
PUC (State Public Utility Commission), County Fire department, County Department of Public
Works, County Civil Defense, and County Planning Department. Some specifc highlights of my
research are provided below.
FCC
Regardingr the provisions of Bill 194, FCC informed me that FCC’s regulations are a “floor” and
local governments may enact stricter laws (such as HRS 46-89) to create a higher “ceiling”, as long
as it didn’t give the power to outright prohibit or create a moratorium on broadband infrastructure in
anyway. One FCC requirement of note was that, if there are any disputes on the installation of a
given broadband infrastructure, they must be resolved within 180 days.
During the November 21 Leeward Planning Commission hearing on Bill 194, County lawyers sited
Chapter 47 subsection 7(c)(iv) of the USC that states that “no state or local government or
instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of the radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the commission’s (FCC) regulations
concerning such emissions.” During my discussions with the FCC, I raised all the provisions of the
bill that were a higher ceiling of regulation currently in USC Chapter 47, Hawaiʻi County Code or
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes and they confirmed that they were all permissible under Federal Law
because none of them were in any way either a prohibition or moratorium on the installation of
broadband infrastructure, nor were they in violation of federal law under USC 47(c)(iv) because
none of the requirements proposed in Bill 194 uses a metric for RF (radio frequency) exposure to
provide any further regulation of broadband infrastructure. Whereas Bill 194 concerns itself with
construction parameters, planning parameters, zoning, disaster preparedness, notification and
transparency, as well as preservation of neighborhood characteristics. In short, The plan approval
2
will never be subject to what the RF (radio frequency) emissions are. The current bill language only
requires an affirmation relating to FCC compliance and RF (radio frequency) levels.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
Corporation Counsel, Elizabeth Strance, after reviewing draft bill in late 2023, asked me to pause
and wait for the Planning Department who was updating code on broadband related permits in
response to update of HRS (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 46-89, more specifically:
“A county shall approve, approve with modification, or disapprove all applications for
broadband-related permits within sixty days of submission of a complete permit application and
full payment of any applicable fee. If, on the sixty-first day, an application is not approved, approved
with modification, or disapproved by the county, the application shall be deemed approved by the
county.”
“No action shall be prosecuted or maintained against any county, its officials, or employees
on account of actions taken in reviewing, approving, modifying, or disapproving a permit
application pursuant to this section, or against public utilities resulting from such actions.”
Corporation Counsel suggested I work with Planning. I agreed.
RESEARCH: Local Ordinances
Staff and I researched municipalities that have passed ordinances that regulate the permitting of
broadband infrastructure. Note that many of these provisions go above and beyond what is stated
in Bill 194.
Davis CA: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• Annual or bi-annual RF emission monitoring report, including any FCC updates.
• At director's discretion, qualified independent RF engineer or consultant review, paid for by
the applicant.
• Optional periodic review by county.
• Prohibition in sensitive areas: habitats, school sites, and historical resources.
Calabasas CA: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• Provides for noise limits on broadband infrastructure, including a noise study.
• Decommissioning: Site must be restored reasonably close to original condition.
• Requires structural analysis by licensed engineer.
• All planned radio frequency emissions stated in proposal.
Copake NY: Permit approval of broadband infrastructure
• May hire independent consultants, paid for by applicant.
• Provides for monitoring protocol, paid for by applicant, including pre-testing and post
testing, to ensure compliance with FCC regulations.
• Requires radiated signal propagation studies, signed by a qualified radio-frequency
engineer, paid for by the applicant.
• Requires public hearing.
3
• 1500 ft setbacks for residences, schools, any public buildings.
• Prohibited in endangered species habitats and other areas; must submit an E.A. where
applicable under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
• Regular structural inspections, paid for by applicant.
Sallisaw OK: Permit approval for broadband infrastructure
• Residence setbacks of 1500 ft for towers having a height of 75 feet or less.
Euclid Ohio: Application Requirements
Written report demonstrating the applicant’s review and selection of tower locations in order of
priority, demonstrating technological reasons for the preferred site selected and written
certification by the applicant’s engineer of propagation studies showing the necessity for location
of the tower.
Permit fee schedule:
(a) New wireless communications tower- $5,000.00
(b) New wireless communications antenna/array-$2000,00
(c) Collocation of wireless communication antenna/array on existing tower or building:
$2,000.00
Liability Insurance:
Commercial general liability coverning personal injuries, death and property damage: $1,000,000
per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate
Fire Department
• Battalion Chief Palani Kurashige offered comments. Fire department would benefit from
having in code a plan approval requirement for cell towers that included MOA agreements
with all landowners that access road may cross for easy access through locked gates in
emergency situations, video monitoring option at tower in the event of fire or other emergency
situations, and vegetation plan for fire prevention. He approves of fire safety plans already as
part of the current use permit process for cell towers, so adding new provisions wouldn’t be
hard to do for the Fire Department.
DPW
• Supervising electrical inspector at DPW offered comments. Bill 194 language goes above and
beyond what is used to currently approve cell towers in Chapter 5, Article 3, Section 5-3-
1(b)(6): Television or radio communication towers, and that “ to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, relocate, convert, or demolish any television or radio communication tower that
is not regulated by the public utilities commission. Our 2020 National Electrical code does
not regulate communication construction in Article 90.20(B) (4): Installation of
communications equipment under the exclusive control of communications utilities located
outdoors or in a building spaces used exclusively for such installations. With that being said,
if a permit is required, then Section 25-2-74 would be appropriate permitting guidelines.
4
Planning
• Interacted on several occasions with Planning Director and Deputy Director. Aside from the
concerns of current code being in conflict with HRS 46-89, Planning did not provide a draft of
their bill. I forwarded my draft bill for review and comment.
• Deputy Director and staff offered comments which I incorporated. Said any public meeting
would be “informational only” given the constraints of HRS46-89. Commented my bill had
looked at more regulations and standards then what Planning had been considering.
• At the last interaction before introduction of Bill 194, they said their bill was not ready.
HUD
• HUD classifies cell towers as a hazard and a nuisance, requiring appraisers to make
adjustments to value due to the effect on market ability
DLNR
• The use of State lands triggers the environmental assessment requirements of Chapter 343,
HRS. Please contact the Office of Environmental Quality Control for their opinion of whether
an environmental assessment is required and the process to be followed.
In closing, Bill 194 includes important application and plan approval requirements, including:
a) fire, structural, electrical safety;
b) setback,separation, and fall zone;
c) affirmations and statements relating to FCC compliance, and RF levels;
d) in compliance with HRS 46-89
Mahalo for your consideration.
After December 2, I will be testifying as a resident of Hawai’I County. My Council term ends Noon,
December 2. My contact information is:
Cindy Evans
59-048 Olomana Rd
Kamuela, HI 96743
C: 808-345-5810
evans.kohala@gmail.com
Regards,
Cindy Evans
From:Dawn Singleton
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 3:50:48 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank you
Dawn Singleton
From:Debra Greene
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item # 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 4:19:54 PM
Attachments:Windward written testimony 12-2-24.pdf
Aloha,
Attached please find written testimony for Item #4 (and Item #3) for the upcoming WindwardCommission meeting. Mahalo.
Sincerely,
Debra
__________________________________
Debra Greene, PhD
Founding Director
KeepYourPower.org
PHONE: 808-874-6441
WEBSITE: www.KeepYourPower.org
Sent from my faster, safer, more secure HARDWIRED computer
Aloha Windward Commissioners,
Thank you for your attention to the proposed telecommunications ordinances. I hold a PhD in
Communication, and am the Founding Director of Safe Tech Hawaii, a grassroots, all-volunteer
coalition, educating and advocating for safe technology across the islands. I’m writing in
support of County Council Bill 194.
We’re asking for a favorable recommendation for Bill 194 because it represents an ideal
balance between the needs of the community for connectivity, while providing important
safeguards for tower and antenna deployments. People want cell phones but they don’t want
towers or antennas because they’re unsightly and they emit wireless radiation. But there is a
way to minimize exposure to them without compromising connectivity. That’s what Bill 194
does.
It accomplishes this by updating the definition of antennas and towers to stay current with
these ever-evolving technologies. Hawaii County already has in place a protective Resolution
regarding 5G deployments that was adopted four years ago. Bill 194 includes 5G small cell
infrastructure, whereas the other bill doesn’t. This is a major advantage of Bill 194 as small cells
are a novel and untested technology that require regulation for the good of the public. The
County Council’s ordinance is a follow-up to their already adopted Resolution, and it
accomplishes this while bringing County code into compliance with HRS 46-89.
Further, it creates Application Requirements and standards including increased setbacks, and
an order of priority for siting the wireless facilities. All of this is fully within the purview of
Planning and is similar to ordinances already implemented in dozens of local jurisdictions across
the country. Hawaii county has even more reason to regulate towers and antennas because of
aesthetics. People value the beauty of nature here. They don’t want towers and antennas
everywhere, and neither do visitors.
Another important difference between the two bills is that Bill 194 includes application
requirements with provisions involving the Hawaii Fire department, a fire safety plan, and
access easement for fire suppression purposes. In light of the increasing fire risks on Hawaii
island and the devastating fires on Maui, these provisions provide essential protections.
In July 2018, the Hawaii Wireless Fast Track Bill, HB 2651, was signed into law. One of the
sponsors was then-legislator Cindy Evans, who wrote and introduced Bill 194 here. HB 2651
codifies Federal law and says that Counties can and should regulate. It lists 15 permitting
requirements, and says that County regulation is needed before any of those requirements can
be used. That’s because Federal law grants local jurisdictions the authority to regulate towers
and antennas.
In the Telecommunications Act, Congress preserved local governments authority to regulate
the placement, construction and modification of wireless facilities subject only to five
constraints.
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
ordinance was shared with Planning over six months before the he introduced his
ordinance. Cooperation was demonstrated by Council Member Evans, but not by the
former Director.
2) Bill 194 Section 25-2-74(5)
This Subsection proposes a report prepared by a licensed professional electrical
engineer certifying that the proposed use complies with all applicable standards and
regulations, including RF emissions regulations set by the FCC and the state of Hawaii.
The former Director raised three concerns:
First: He stated that the FCC already regulates RF emissions so an additional report is
redundant; yet, ironically, his proposed ordinance requires an additional report from the
FCC verifying compliance. Why is that not redundant?
Further, his requirement that the FCC provide a statement of compliance or that no
compliance is necessary is of grave concern. Obtaining such a statement from the FCC, a
Federal agency that is not equipped to provide such statements to local jurisdictions
across the U.S., could take weeks and violate the 60-day approval timeline mandated by
HRS 4689.
Second: The former Director stated that the proposed report places responsibility on
planners who lack technical expertise to review technical engineering reports; however,
no such burden would be placed on planners. The responsibility is with the licensed
professional who prepared the report. As is customary, planners simply would check a
box indicating that the report was provided.
A report by an independent professional is absolutely necessary because the FCC does
not send representatives onsite to test RF emissions, so there is no way to verify
compliance. According to telecommunications attorney Andrew Campanelli who has
successfully won lawsuits against telecommunications corporations, independent
testing done in other jurisdictions has shown instances in which RF emissions exceeded
the FCC guidelines. This is deeply troubling for the community because the FCC has
some of the most lenient emission standards in the world.
Third: The former Director stated that this report requirement could conflict with
federal law as local governments cannot impose stricter RF standards than the FCC. How
can a report certifying compliance with Federal Law conflict with Federal law? There is
absolutely nothing in the proposed ordinance that would impose stricter RF standards
than are required by Federal law - quite the opposite. Again, the proposed requirement,
as stated, is to ensure compliance with Federal law. To suggest it potentially violates
Federal law reflects an inability to properly understand the ordinance. Or maybe there’s
something else at play?
3) Bill 194 Subsections 25-2-74(6), (7), (8), (12), (13) and 25-4-12(i)(3) & (4)
These Subsections constitute plan approval application requirements. The former
Director stated that these sections are outside the purview of Planning but this is not a
valid claim as there is nothing unusual about these sections. Conditions such as these
are routine for various permit applications here. They include conditions such as flood
control, fire prevention, Department of Health requirements, County code compliance,
and so forth. In addition, jurisdictions across the country have implemented ordinances
such as Bill 194 through their local planning departments. It’s common practice here
and elsewhere to include such provisions.
4) Bill 194 Subsection 25-4-12(f)
This Section states that “the director may [emphasis mine] engage a private consultant
to inspect and determine whether the proposed use violates any” FCC standards
provided that the consultant’s time not count toward the time limit.
The former Director repeatedly and incorrectly stated that Bill 194 includes the “Use of
Private Consultants” when there is no required use of private consultants anywhere in
the bill. His claim is misleading as the proposed ordinance does not mandate hiring a
private consultant. The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned once, is
optional, and is at the discretion of the Director.
Then former Director Kern raised four concerns. First, he stated that “engaging private
consultants may significantly raise costs for the County, creating unnecessary financial
burdens,” but this claim is alarmist and unfounded. Again, the proposed ordinance does
not require hiring a private consultant. The choice is optional and at the discretion of
the Director.
Second, he stated “the current wording suggests that the consultant’s determination
occurs after Plan Approval” but this claim is unfounded as the language refers to “the
proposed use” which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not
occur after Plan Approval. Even if the language needs to be tweaked a bit, that hardly
constitutes a “significant concern” that merits an unfavorable recommendation.
Third, the former Director stated that “it would be more logical to hire a consultant
before Final Plan Approval rather than afterward” but, again, the language in this
Section refers to “the proposed use” which indicates this option is part of an application
process and does not occur after Plan Approval.
Fourth, the former Director stated that “relying on private consultants could introduce
delays in the approval process” that may violate the 60-day timeframe mandated by
HRS 4689. Again, this claim is unfounded and alarmist because nothing in Bill 194
includes “relying on private consultants”. The choice to engage a private consultant is
mentioned only once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director.
5) Bill 194 Section 25-4-12(h)
This Section describes tower siting prioritization. It says:
(h) Telecommunication antennas and towers shall be sited in accordance with the
following order of priority:
(1) On building sites with existing telecommunication antennas or towers;
(2) On industrial zoned lands;
(3) All other lands, exclusive of industrial zoned lands and residential zoned lands;
and
(4) Residential zoned lands.
The former Director stated five concerns.
First: His stated concern was that it’s “unclear how staff should prioritize applications
across zoning districts”, which is confounding since the proposed Section describes
exactly how applications should be prioritized.
Second: He stated it “lacks guidance on whether applicants must analyze unviable
lower-priority sites.” This statement is baffling. Why would an applicant need guidance
about analyzing unviable lower-priority sites? Why was this even a concern? And even if
it was a valid concern, telecommunications corporations have endless resources at their
disposal. They are free to do any and all analyzing of unviable, low-priority sites if they
so choose without that being stipulated in an ordinance.
Third: The former Director stated it’s “uncertain if staff must deny applications for
underserved areas without proper zoning or suggest alternative sites”, a concern that
could easily be remedied.
Fourth: He stated that “prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60-day
approval timeframe” but he gave no rationale for what could cause such delays, so at
this time that claim is purely speculative.
Five: He stated that “Enforcement remains undefined.” If Planning is doing its job, they
will adhere to the prioritization and no enforcement would be required. Was the Former
Director suggesting planners may not adhere to the law and need to be policed, in
which case all of the provisions would need enforcement, not just this one?
Finally, the former Director’s proposed ordinance exempts eight zoning districts from
setbacks. This is of grave concern as several of those zones have residential and schools
nearby and even mixed in, so those zones should not be exempted from setbacks.
Further, his ordinance requires a 1200-foot setback for residential and schools and,
given the proximity issue, this could potentially create a planning nightmare in trying to
differentiate the setbacks versus exemptions. Such exemptions could delay permitting
and exceed the 60-day approval timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. To avoid this
potential violation, the easy remedy would be to uniformly require setbacks with no
exemptions, which is exactly what Bill 194 does.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration of our comments. Please feel free to
reach out with any questions.
Sincerely,
Debra
_____________________
Debra Greene, PhD
Founding Director
Safe Tech Hawaii
808-874-6441
debra@SafeTechHawaii.com
From:MESHGLASS
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 5:53:09 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
thank you
DMK Kirk
-- The information contained in this email message may be copyright, privileged, confidential,and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure,dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intendedrecipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have receivedthis E-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this email promptly.
From:donna grabow
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Item #4, Bill 194 Hawaii County Planning Commission Meeting
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:47:25 AM
Attachments:Cell Towers.gif
Aloha,
Item #4 is being recommended because it is helpful in insuring undesired
health affects caused by over loading airspace with frequency-pollution from
Telecommunication super growth.
Please recommend ordinance Item #4 of Bill 194.
There are other local jurisdictions that have implemented ordinances similar to
Bill 194, in order to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas.
Mahalo,
Donna Grabow
From:Dove Sifferlen
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 11:07:45 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Dove M. Sifferlen
Cell: 808-283-0399
104 Kahiapo Place
Haiku, HI 96708
This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you think you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by
reply email or by telephone, and delete the original message.
From:George Stewart
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4...
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:02:26 AM
Re: Item #4:
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. Please support Bill 194. Mahalo.
George S Mycroft (Capt ret'd)
From:Jamie
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #4 please
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:36:48 AM
Good morning,
Please, please, please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council
proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
This is for the health and well being of all of us.
Thank you,
Jamie Belmarez
Big Island resident for 20 years
From:Jessica Main-Villines
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:18:53 AM
To whom it may concern,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all applicable
Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Jessica Main-Villines
From:Juhl Rayne
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:support item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:05:24 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
thank you
Juhl Rayne
From:kimiko knight
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Item#4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:28:52 AM
I strongly support Item #4 and favor Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas.
Thank you.
Kimiko Knight
75-5919 Alii Dr., FF-21
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
From:kirstin morris
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:support item # 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:22:23 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.Mahalo nui loa !
Kirstin Morris
From:kitty Olsen
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item#4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:30:45 AM
Do Not have G5 on Big Iskand
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Laurie West
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:SUPPORT ITEM #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:57:51 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
-Laurie West, resident of the State of Hawai`I
From:Marcia Hoodwin
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:30:49 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. Sent from my iPhone
From:Maria Scafidi
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 3:30:14 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank You!
Maria Scafidi
From:Mark Graham
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4 on the agenda, Bill #194
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 2:10:47 PM
December 2, 2024
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
My name is Mark Graham. I live in Elk Grove, California, the city that in 2019 adopted the
"front yard rule for cell antenna placement" into our zoning code. It's in the P.S. of thismessage. EGMC section 23.94.050 A. 6. b.
You can read them in the Elk Grove Municipal Code here:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/#!/ElkGrove23/ElkGrove2394.html#23.94.050
Radiation from cell antennas is hazardous to our health! The industry knows it. The
government knows it. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) does not allow you toregulate placement of cell antennas on the basis of the environmental effects of cell antenna
radiation BUT it does allow you to prevent the irresponsible placement of cell antennas. Youcan regulate placement, as we do here in Elk Grove, to protect what the City considers is
aesthetic values. Our front yard rule (my name for it) for cell antenna placement has protectedabout 90% of Elk Grove homes from having a cell antenna placed on a city light pole in front
of the house or apartment. The companies are still getting permits and installing antennas, butnot right adjacent to our front yards. Telecom has NOT sued the City of Elk Grove. If we can
do it then you can do it too. Bill 194 is not the same as our front yard rule but it is a measureintended to protect residents by the County exercising its power, its local zoning authority.
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
This is about:
What: Windward Planning Commission meetingWhen: Thursday, December 5, 1:00pmWhere: Hawai‘i County Council Chambers in Hilo 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 (or via
Zoom)
Please acknowledge your receipt of this message.
Thank you and best wishes,
Mark GrahamCo-Founder
Keep Cell Antennas AwayA local residents' advocacy group
www.KeepCellAntennasAway.org
P.S. Here is the front yard rule for cell antenna placement as in the Elk Grove Municipal
Code, the Zoning Code.
23.94.050 Development standards.
A. General Development Standards. Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to EGMCSection 23.94.040, Exemptions, or as otherwise provided in an agreement approved by
the Elk Grove City Council pursuant to EGMC Section 23.94.035, Small Cell WirelessCommunications Facilities, the following general development standards shall apply to all
wireless communications facilities:
6. In a residential zoning district, the following development standards shall apply,
unless the applicant can demonstrate with substantial evidence satisfactory to theapproving authority that such siting limitation will materially inhibit personal
wireless service as to a particular small cell wireless communication facility.
a. No small cell wireless communication facility shall be placed within fivehundred (500’ 0”) feet of another small cell wireless communications facility.
b. No small cell wireless communication facility shall be locatedimmediately adjacent to, nor immediately across the street from, a front yard
of any residential dwelling.
Here is the signed version of City of Elk Grove Ordinance No. 19-2019, which approved a
new cell antenna policy which includes zoning code amendments and a master licenseagreement between the City and AT&T / Cingular. You can download it from this page.
City of EG Ordinance 19-2019
From:Marsha Andreola
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item # 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 12:39:04 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you!!!!
Marsha Andreola
302 Kealahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
From:Marta Barreras
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 2:42:44 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council
proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local
jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to
regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with
all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates
to the code.
Blessings and Aloha,
Marta Barreras
From:wildwahine
To:WPCtestimony
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:40:58 AM
County Council proposed telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194...is the least we can
do to keep all the implications of 5G off our beautiful island!!
This is a compromise to NO 5G AT ALL!!
Inhabitants of this beautiful Big Island hope you at least adopt Bill 194 to regulate the
deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State
laws and offers important updates to the code.
With Aloha,Michelle Rae
From:Byrne 5165
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item#4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:48:44 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Nancy ByrneSent from my iPad
From:Naomi Melamed
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 3:43:09 PM
Attachments:WPC Testimony in Support of Item #4 Bill 194.pdf
Aloha, This is a list of attached resources mentioned in my testimony PDF attached:
Mahalo, Naomi Melamed
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 ¶1.6002 (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 CIty 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-urgency-ordinance-to-keep-grip-on-5g-proliferation/
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
“I want the city and county government to clearly say no to the FCC,” said
resident Arthur Saftlas. “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://qcode.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 polse
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.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Testimony in Support of Bill 194
Aloha Commissioners,
Mahalo for your time and dedication in reviewing the updated solution for wireless
infrastructure on the Big Island. My name is Naomi Melamed, and I am a Hawaii Island leader
for Safe Tech Hawaii, a voluntary group that has been serving statewide for several years. Our
mission is to educate and support our local community by engaging with the legislative
process to promote a balance between connectivity and safety in Hawaii. We are composed
of thousands of local members who deeply care about Hawaii.
Request for Favorable Recommendation
I kindly request that the planning department favorably recommend Bill 194 to the council,
allowing council members to address any di erences between the two bills through their
established process. Both the planning department's proposed ordinance and Bill 194
contain language that requires revision, and it doesn't make sense to recommend one over
the other at this stage. The initial attempt by the councilmember introducing Bill 194 to
collaborate was not honored, but I appreciate that both bills are now being considered
together, allowing for thoughtful deliberation.
Compliance and Transparency
Although I am not an authority on county code, I have included links to dozens of other
jurisdictions with more protective ordinances around the US. Bill 194 complies with USC 47
section 332, C-7-b-4, as it does not excessively request information from applicants, like EMF
levels. Instead, it encourages transparency and provides valuable information, considering
those with EMF exposure sensitivities. Our group has conducted a statewide monitor of EMF
emissions from towers, revealing excessively high levels. This is a genuine concern for our
population, irrespective of zoning.
Expertise and Precedent
Many electricians and field technicians already use measuring meters, similar to those used
by local utility companies. The meters may be, though language refinement may be beneficial.
Furthermore, a federal court ruling in 2020 criticized the FCC for not updating their EMF
exposure levels, deeming their inaction "arbitrary and capricious."
Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than the FCC but seeks to document
emissions and outline measurement processes.
Addressing Concerns about FCC Standards
As highlighted by other testifiers, a significant federal court ruling in 2020 criticized the FCC
for failing to update their EMF exposure levels for humans and the environment. The court
deemed this oversight "arbitrary and capricious," emphasizing that the FCC neglected to
consider substantial evidence, totaling over 11,000 pages, from multiple reputable sources
during their review. This ruling places the FCC under scrutiny, questioning the reliability of
their outdated regulations.
Importance of Updated EMF Measurements
Bill 194 does not impose stricter EMF standards than those currently set by the FCC. Instead,
it aims to document emissions and establish a clear process for measuring them. This
initiative is crucial, as it ensures transparency and provides essential data, particularly for
community members with EMF exposure sensitivities. While the language of the bill could be
refined to enhance clarity, it does not warrant an unfavorable recommendation.
Maintaining Lawfulness and Safety
The ordinance remains solid in its legal foundation, aligning with existing laws while
acknowledging the need for updated information on emissions. By focusing on measurement
and transparency, Bill 194 responsibly addresses the community's concerns without
contravening federal guidelines.
Addressing Safety Concerns
Council member Evans' bill includes detailed fire plans and site approval requirements,
providing reassurance to residents.
While Bill 194 does not regulate cell towers and antennas based on environmental concerns,
it highlights a crucial issue that local jurisdictions must address to protect their constituents'
interests. The bill balances community needs within the necessary legal framework of the
state and USC 47 section 332, C-7-b-4. I hope the planning commission recognizes this and
recommends Bill 194 favorably.
Robust Legislation
Bill 194 has been in development for about a year, incorporating input from diverse
community members and groups. Although the planning department was approached for
collaboration, they chose a di erent path. Nonetheless, our group is pleased to o er our
expertise, particularly in documenting other jurisdictions with protective ordinances.
Bill 194 is robust legislation reflecting the will of island residents over external business
interests while ensuring connectivity for all. I understand that having two bills on the same
topic can be confusing, but I encourage the commission to recommend Bill 194, allowing
elected council members to evaluate both bills equally.
Importance of Small Cell Regulation
Technology is evolving rapidly, and one valuable aspect of Bill 194 is its inclusion of small
cells regulation, a new and untested component of 5G. These cells pose increased exposure
risks due to their buildout and must be included in modern-day legislation. The planning
director's proposed bill does not mention small cells, making this an important distinction.
Concerns with the Director’s Bill
The director's bill raises questions about surveillance camera operators, potentially implying
the use of private consultants? It is unclear because it’s yet to be determined. Additionally,
while it mentions decommissioning, it lacks a clear process for deconstruction, unlike Bill 194.
Co-location Documentation
Bill 194's co-location documentation requirement is commendable. It mandates plan
approval for co-location, whereas the PD Bill only requires new plan approval for "substantial
changes," as defined by the FCC. Without new permits at co-location points, there's no
regulation or knowledge of EMF emissions from updated towers. This oversight could lead to
fire or fall hazards, as unregistered pre-existing towers co-locate without scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Big Island greatly needs Bill 194 to protect its beauty, safety, well-being, and property
values. Council member Evans' bill includes detailed fire plans and site approval
requirements, providing reassurance to residents.
In conclusion, the call for transparency and documentation in Bill 194 is a reasonable and
necessary step forward. This approach aligns with both legal standards and community
safety needs, advocating for a balanced consideration rather than an unfavorable
recommendation.
Mahalo for reading my testimony and for your consideration.
Naomi Melamed
Safe Tech Hawaii, Hawaii Island Leader
From:Sarah Hoffman
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 2:50:02 PM
Hello,
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Thank you!Sarah Hoffman
From:seth mcdonough
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 11:09:34 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo
SethSent from my iPhone
From:Susan Bland
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 9:34:35 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,
Susan Anderson
From:susan higa
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:support #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 1:32:15 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
Unchecked proliferation of cell towers and antennas are of greater and greater concern.
Pls give favorable recommendation to the County Council proposed telecommunicationsordinance, Bill 194.
Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate thedeployment of towers and antennas.
It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to thecode.
Thank you for your attention to this deep concern.
sincerelysusan higawailuku
From:Darlene Waddell
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 12:25:29 PM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo Nui Loa,
The Waddell Ohana
From:Yahoo Mail
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:PLEASE....SUPPORT ITEM # 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:40:49 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code. THANK YOU!
From:Vic L
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 11:53:35 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposedtelecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implemented
ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is alignedwith all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
From:Vickie Wangberg
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support item #4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 11:02:33 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have
implemented ordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and
antennas. It is aligned with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important
updates to the code.
Mahalo,Vickie B. Wangberg
mvwangberg2@gmail.com
From:Zain Yamani
To:WPCtestimony
Subject:Support Item 4
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 10:04:18 AM
Please give a Favorable Recommendation to the County Council proposed
telecommunications ordinance, Bill 194. Dozens of local jurisdictions have implementedordinances similar to Bill 194 to regulate the deployment of towers and antennas. It is aligned
with all applicable Federal and State laws and offers important updates to the code.
Thank you,Zain Yamani