1 2 Meeting Date: April 8, 2019 3 4 TOWN OF MORAGA STAFF REPORT 5 6 To: Planning Commission 7 8 From: Derek Farmer, Planning Director 9 Steve Kowalski, Senior Planner 10 11 Subject: Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Resolution __-2019 12 Recommending Town Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending 13 Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes 14 and Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the 15 Moraga Municipal Code, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless 16 Facilities,” and Amending Various Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to 17 Add General Development Standards, Procedures and Aesthetic 18 Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate 19 Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right- 20 of-Way in Accordance with Federal Communications Commission 21 Regulations; and Consider Resolution __-2019 Recommending Town 22 Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.144, “Wireless 23 Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous 24 Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal 25 Code, as an Urgency Measure, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless 26 Facilities,” and Amending Various Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to 27 Add General Development Standards, Procedures and Aesthetic 28 Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate 29 Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right- 30 of-Way in Accordance with Federal Communications Commission 31 Regulations. 32 33 Request 34 Staff requests that the Planning Commission 1) consider recommending the Town35 Council adopt an urgency ordinance that would go into effect immediately upon36 adoption and, 2) consider recommending the Town Council adopt a standard ordinance37 that would go through the two-step process and take effect 30 days after adoption.38 Both ordinances amend Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite39 Dishes and Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga40 Municipal Code, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” and Various Sections41 Within Chapter 8.144 to Add General Development Standards, Procedures and42 Aesthetic Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate Deployment of43

1 Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal1 Communications Commission Regulations.2 3 4 Background 5 6 FCC Declaratory Ruling On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) approved a7 Declaratory Ruling and a Third Report and Order, collectively referred to as the8 “Carr Order.” The Carr Order is intended to remove regulatory barriers and accelerate9 the deployment of 5G wireless communications infrastructure across the nation. It10 achieves this by expanding the degree of pre-emption over local control regarding both:11 (a) the permitting of small cell wireless facilities (also known as “small-cell sites”); and12 13 (b) the leasing of small-cell sites by local government to wireless service providers. The Carr Order went into effect on January 14, 2019 with the exception of the Order’s14 requirements relating to aesthetic standards a local government may adopt and enforce,15 which goes into effect on April 15, 2019. Several local jurisdictions have sued the16 FCC over the order because it usurps local control, but the results of that litigation will17 not be known for many months. More recently, federal Representative Anna Eshoo from18 19 California has introduced legislation in Congress (HR 530) to halt the Carr Order. 20 The FCC’s Rationale The FCC states that it adopted the Carr Order to “ensure the United States wins the21 global race to 5G to the benefit of all Americans.” The FCC states that supporting next-22 generation technologies through the adoption of smart infrastructure policy is critical to23 the public welfare and estimates that wireless carriers will invest $275 billion in small24 cell site infrastructure over the next decade, resulting in the creation of approximately25 three million new jobs and boosting the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by26 $500 billion. The FCC also claims that its new rules will save the wireless27 telecommunications industry over $2 billion in local government fees.28 29 30 Land-Use Implications for the Town  The Carr Order does not prohibit the Town from establishing its own aesthetic31 requirements for small cell wireless facilities, provided these requirements are:32 (a) reasonable; (b) no more burdensome than those applied to similar types of33 34 infrastructure deployments; (c) objective; and (d) published in advance.  The Carr Order considers spacing requirements between small cell sites to be a35 subset of aesthetics requirements, and thus subject to the same standard.36 However, the Carr Order gives no guidance on what a reasonable spacing37 38 distance might be.  The Town cannot deny a wireless service provider the ability to provide service39 either through explicit or effective prohibitions. In other words, the Town cannot40 ban new small cell wireless facilities, establish a cap on the number of providers,41 or materially inhibit the ability of providers to compete. As a result, the Town42 cannot simply say “no” to all small cell sites within specific neighborhoods or43 other areas within its jurisdiction if it would result in an effective prohibition on44 45 service.

2  Regulations requiring all small cell wireless facilities, including antennas, to be1 placed underground would effectively prohibit wireless services because2 3 antennas have to be placed above ground in order to function.  The Town cannot regulate the type of technology a wireless service provider4 chooses to employ.5  Under the new time limits established by the Carr Order (also known as the “shot6 clock deadlines”), the Town only has 60 days to complete the review of an7 application for a small cell wireless facility being proposed on an existing8 structure (such as a street light or utility pole), and 90 days to review an9 application for a facility being proposed on a new pole or other type of structure10 (such as a fake tree).11 12 13 Conclusions The Carr Order significantly diminishes the Town’s decision-making power, but it does14 not eliminate that power altogether. By establishing new policies and procedures, the15 Town can continue to retain some degree of local control over the deployment of small16 cell sites. Furthermore, the Carr Order does not preempt the Town’s ability to negotiate17 future agreements to provide a mutually acceptable process for the deployment of small18 cell sites. Therefore, the Town has an opportunity to negotiate with wireless service19 20 providers. Separate from the Carr Order, local governments are already precluded from regulation21 of the location of wireless communications facilities, including small cell sites, based on22 the emissions of those facilities. This pre-emption has been in effect23 since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.24 25 26 March 13, 2019 Town Council Hearing and Direction Given the abbreviated time period to adopt aesthetic criteria and development27 standards for small cell wireless facilities, staff presented its recommendations to the28 Town Council at a public hearing on March 13, 2019. Staff noted that the Town has29 regulations in place regarding wireless communications facilities in MMC Chapter 8.144.30 However, they do not pertain to small cell wireless facilities since the current ordinance31 was adopted in 1999, prior to the advent of such facilities. Furthermore, many of the32 regulations in MMC Chapter 8.144 do not reflect the various changes that have been33 made in federal law relating to other types of wireless communications facilities since34 1999, and generally need to be updated to reflect the changes in technology that have35 occurred over the last two decades. Therefore, staff recommended a two-teired36 approach, including the adoption of an urgency ordinance to establish aesthetic and37 development standards ahead of the April 15, 2019 shot clock established by the Carr38 Order, followed by a more comprehensive update to Chapter 8.144 to address the39 provisions currently in Chapter 8.144 that are inconsistent with FCC regulations. The40 Town Council agreed with this approach and voted 5-0 to direct staff to prepare an41 urgency ordinance for Planning Commission and Town Council consideration prior to42 April 15, 2019, followed by a more comprehensive update to Chapter 8.144.43 44 45 Discussion 46 The proposed amendments to MMC Chapter 8.144 contained in the draft resolution are47 intended to establish new standards pertaining to the installation of small cell wireless48

3 facilities located within the Town’s public rights-of-way that adhere to the limitations of1 the Carr Order while still protecting the aesthetic character of the Town to the extent2 allowed. More specifically, the amendments would prescribe rigorous, but fair and3 reasonable – consistent with the requirements of the Carr Order – standards which all4 wireless service providers must adhere to when proposing to install small cell wireless5 facilities on existing or new facilities located within the public right-of-way, such as street6 lights and utility poles. The standards would require service providers to employ various7 construction methods and utilize equipment and materials designed to conceal all8 visible equipment associated with the proposed facility (including antennas, wiring,9 batteries, etc.) to the maximum extent feasible to minimize any adverse aesthetic10 impacts on the environment.11 12 The amendments would also include new procedures for the processing of applications13 for new small cell wireless facilities that would allow for ministerial approval of such14 applications by the Planning Director contingent upon his or her ability to make a set of15 prescribed findings in each case and only after completion of a 10-day public notification16 period in which the owners and occupants of all property within 300 feet of the proposed17 project site are notified of the proposal. Any decisions made by the Planning Director18 would be appealable. However, because of the strict shot clock deadlines imposed by19 the Carr Order, decisions made by the Planning Director would only be appealable20 directly to the Town Council; the Commission would not be able to hear such cases.21 22 The Town is in a similar situation to most jurisdictions who are currently rushing to adopt23 urgency ordinances that establish aesthetic standards prior to the April 15, 201924 deadline imposed by the Carr order. The Town’s approach is similar to the City of25 Orinda’s who retained the services of a telecommunications law firm to guide their26 process. The City of Lafayette, to our knowledge, is not planning to take action prior to27 April 15. The Cities of San Jose, Huntington Beach and Seattle are leading three28 lawsuit opposing implementation of the Carr order. The Town is not a party to the29 litigation but is following the process.30 31 The Town has received written public comments and staff is currently summarizing the32 major concerns and responses. This information will be included in staff’s presentation33 to the Planning Commission.34 35 Amendments to Chapter 8.144 are necessary to achieve consistency with the Carr36 Order and to preserve the orderly processing of applications for small cell wireless37 facilities and to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community through38 consistent aesthetic regulations relating to those small cell wireless facilities. In order to39 preserve the public peace, health and safety of the community, an Ordinance must be40 adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section 36937, as there41 is insufficient time to adopt an Ordinance through the standard introduction and second42 reading/adoption process while still meeting the April 15, 2019 deadline of the Order.43 Additionally, to ensure the defensibility of the ordinance adopted as an urgency44 measure, an identical “back-up” Ordinance is recommended for adoption in the normal45 46 manner with two readings. 47

4 1 Summary of Proposed Amendments: Presently, MMC Section 8.144.010 establishes the purpose and intent of the Code Chapter: namely, to regulate all types of wireless2 communications facilities throughout the Town. The proposed amendments would adopt3 regulations on “small cell wireless facilities” that are consistent with the specific4 requirements for regulating such facilities imposed by the FCC under the Carr Order.5 Section 8.144.020 would be amended to include a definition of “Small Cell Wireless6 Facility” identical to the FCC’s definition. Section 8.144.030 would be amended to7 exclude small cell wireless facilities, since the provisions currently contained therein8 would be inconsistent with the new limitations imposed by the Carr Order (this is9 because these provisions were meant to be applied to more traditional wireless facilities10 commonly installed throughout the early 2000s, such as panel antenna arrays on PG&E11 towers, monopoles, building rooftops, etc.). Finally, a new Code section (proposed as12 Section 8.144.035) would be added that would contain the separate development13 standards and application procedures for all new small cell wireless facilities consistent14 with the provisions of the Carr Order. This new Code section would contain the rigorous15 but fair standards that new small cell wireless facilities would need to be designed in16 accordance with before they could be approved in order to protect the aesthetic quality17 of the Town.18 19 The proposed amendments would read as follows, with all new text shown as20 21 underlined: 22 23 8.144.010 - Purpose and intent. The purpose of this article is to regulate wireless communication transmission24 and/or reception facilities (hereinafter called "wireless communications facilities") to25 minimize the potential health, safety and aesthetic impacts of such facilities on the26 community, as follows:27 28 A. To establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of29 wireless communication facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of30 the town;31 32 B. To establish development standards of wireless communications facilities in33 34 accordance with federal laws, including small cell wireless facilities as defined 35 herein; 36 C. To acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless37 communications facilities within the town and to provide incentives for well38 designed and well placed facilities;39 40 D. To pursue additional benefits from the facilities to the public by encouraging the41 leasing of publicly owned properties where feasible for the development of42 wireless communication facilities; and43 44 E. Encourage the location of wireless communications facilities in commercial45 districts and generally discourage the location of such facilities in residential46 districts and visually sensitive areas.47 48

5 1 8.144.020 - Definitions. As used in this article:2 . . .3 4 “Small Cell Wireless Facility” is a wireless communications facility that meets the 5 following criteria: 6 1. The facility- 7 (i) is mounted on a structure 50 feet or less in height including its antennas as 8 defined in Section 1.1320(d) of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or 9 (ii) is mounted on a structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent 10 structures; or 11 (iii) does not extend the existing structure on which it is located to a height of 12 more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater. 13 2. Each antenna associated with the facility, excluding associated antenna 14 equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume. 15 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless 16 equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated 17 equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. . . .18 19 20 8.144.030 - General development standards. The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new21 22 wireless communication facilities except small cell wireless facilities. A. Ground Mounted Equipment. All ground mounted wireless communication23 equipment, antennas, poles, dishes, cabinets, structures, towers or other24 appurtenances shall be:25 1. Of a minimal functional height or no greater than twenty (20) feet,26 whichever is less;27 2. Have a nonreflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to28 minimize visual impacts;29 3. Shall be sited to be screened by existing development, topography or30 vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless31 communication facility. Additional new vegetation and its proper irrigation32 where practical, or other screening may be required as a condition of33 approval.34 35 B. Roof and Building Mounted Equipment. Roof and building mounted equipment,36 including monopoles and antennas shall:37 1. Be located as far away as feasible and aesthetically practicable from the38 outer edge of a building. Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or39 treated to match the exterior of the building or background visible beyond40 the antenna;41 2. Avoid being mounted on the peaks of roofs to the greatest extent possible42 and all other related equipment shall be screened or hidden from view.43 44 C. A wireless communication facility shall comply with all applicable FCC45 standards for radio frequency emissions and shall not adversely affect the46 public health, safety or welfare.47 48

6 D. All new wireless communication facilities shall be collocated with existing and/or1 with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable.2 Collocation is discouraged when it will increase visual impacts. Service3 providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as light4 standards, utility poles and other structures where the collocation is found to5 minimize the overall visual impact.6 7 E. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night8 maintenance or emergencies. The lighting shall be constructed or located so9 that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.10 11 F. Where feasible, the location of commercial wireless communication facilities12 shall be encouraged to be located on publicly-owned property or public13 easement or right-of-way.14 15 G. All equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be16 removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be17 restored to its original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with18 continued use by any collocated facility. The town shall be given thirty (30)19 days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of the facility prior to discontinuation of20 use.21 22 H. All proposals for wireless communications facilities shall include a description of23 the site selection process undertaken, including coverage objectives and24 alternative site analysis.25 26 I. Antennas and equipment buildings shall not be located closer than three27 hundred (300) feet from a residential structure and one hundred (100) feet from28 residential property line.29 30 31 Section 8.144.035 – General development standards and procedures for small cell 32 wireless facilities. 33 34 A. A small cell wireless facility may be constructed in all zoning districts upon 35 issuance of a Small Cell Site Permit in accordance with this section, instead of an 36 issuance of a conditional use permit under section 8.144.080. The following 37 development standards shall apply to the issuance of a small wireless facilities 38 permit, except for applications for an eligible facilities request as defined in 47 39 U.S.C. Section 1455(a): 40 1. All small cell wireless facilities proposed to be installed in the public right-of- 41 way shall require submittal and ministerial design review approval of a Small 42 Cell Site Permit application by the Planning Director or his or her designee 43 prior to building permit approval for such facility. Additionally, applicants shall 44 obtain any permits required under Chapter 12.06 and Chapter 14.04. 45 2. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public 46 right-of-way shall pay the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town 47 Council resolution;

7 1 3. All proposed installations on existing utility poles, street lights, traffic signals, 2 electric, gas, and other utility structures, and other similar facilities as defined 3 in section 12.06.020, located within the public right-of-way shall use the 4 design techniques set forth in this section to minimize visual impacts to the 5 public right of way. Antennas and pole-mounted equipment shall be screened, 6 concealed or disguised with shrouding matching the appearance of the 7 existing structure or be integrated into the structure of the proposed facility so 8 as to be hidden from view. Screening/concealing equipment shall be of 9 minimal, functional size necessary to achieve concealment objectives under 10 this subsection. Cabling and conduit shall be hidden from view by integrating 11 such cabling or conduit into existing equipment where technically feasible, 12 and visible spooling of cable shall be prohibited. 13 4. All cables or wiring associated with a facility shall be concealed within a 14 sleeve between the bottom of the antenna and the mounting bracket. 15 5. All pole-mounted equipment and antennas shall be painted to match the color 16 of the pole or other type of support structure to which it is attached. 17 6. All small cell wireless facilities shall include signage that accurately identifies 18 the facility’s owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a 19 phone number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. No other 20 signage except that required by law or recommended by FCC, OSHA or other 21 federal government agency for compliance with radio-frequency emissions 22 regulations shall be allowed on any small cell wireless facility. 23 7. All non-antenna equipment, including equipment which is susceptible to being 24 installed in an equipment cabinet, shall be installed underground unless the 25 installation of such equipment underground is not technically feasible. This 26 undergrounding requirement shall not apply to cabling and conduit necessary 27 to mount the antenna of a small wireless facility on a new or existing pole, nor 28 apply to non-antenna equipment concealed from public view by being 29 structurally integrated into the construction of a new or existing pole for any 30 utility. 31 32 8. All vents, exhausts and similar features for undergrounded equipment shall 33 be flush to grade to the maximum extent feasible. 34 9. In no case shall a small wireless facility block any public sidewalk or 35 functionally impede an accessible path of travel. 36 10.All disturbed or damaged pavement and/or landscaping within or adjacent to 37 the public right-of-way shall be replaced and areas of bare or disturbed soils 38 must be revegetated upon completion of an installation. 39 11. Landscaping shall be required to provide screening to minimize visual 40 impacts where site conditions allow for installation of new landscaping. 41 Landscaping shall not be required where installation shall be entirely on 42 existing paved surfaces. New landscaping shall be drought-tolerant and 43 designed and installed to be natural in appearance. 44 12.The Town shall be given thirty (30) days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of 45 the facility by the service provider or its designee prior to the discontinuation. 46 All equipment associated with a discontinued facility shall be removed within 47 sixty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be restored to its 48 original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with continued use

8 1 by any collocated facility. The Town may deem a facility abandoned and 2 discontinued under this subsection if the permittee fails to respond within 30 3 calendar days to a written notice sent by certified U.S. mail, return receipt 4 requested, from the Planning Director that states the basis for the Planning 5 Director’s belief that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued for a 6 continuous period of 180 days. A decision of the Planning Director to deem a 7 facility abandoned shall be provided to the service provider in writing, by 8 certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be subject to appeal in 9 accordance with section 1.16.010. A permit shall not be rescinded for 10 discontinuance until the completion of the applicable appeal or the end of the 11 applicable appeal period if no timely appeal is filed. 12 13 B. All applications for small cell wireless facilities shall be subject to the following 14 procedures: 15 1. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public 16 right-of-way shall submit an application to the Planning Department and pay 17 the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town Council resolution; 18 2. Within 10 days of submission of any application, the Planning Director or 19 designee shall determine whether the application is complete, and if not 20 complete, shall provide the applicant notice that the application is incomplete 21 and identify materials or information needed to complete the application; 22 3. The Planning Director shall approve or deny an application ministerially and 23 without a public hearing; 24 4. The Planning Director may approve or deny an application when he/she finds 25 that: 26 a. The proposed project meets the definition of a small cell wireless facility 27 as defined Section 8.144.020; 28 b. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements 29 prescribed in Section 8.144.035(A), unless the application of such 30 requirements to the proposed small cell wireless facility would result in 31 an effective prohibition of service; 32 c. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will comply 33 with all applicable health and safety regulations, which include without 34 limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act and all FCC regulations 35 relating to RF emissions; and 36 Conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Director shall be limited 37 to compliance with requirements set forth in this section, other sections 38 of the municipal code applicable to infrastructure deployments, or 39 requirements necessary to comply with applicable state or federal law. 40 5. Within five calendar days after the Planning Director acts on an application or 41 before the FCC shot clock expires (whichever occurs first), he/she shall notify 42 the applicant of such action by written notice. If the Planning Director denies 43 the application (with or without prejudice), the written notice must contain the 44 reason(s) for the denial. 45 6. Any decision to approve or deny a small cell wireless facility shall be 46 appealable directly to the Town Council. Appeals shall be filed within five 47 business days of a decision having been rendered. Any such appeal shall 48 include a letter identifying the appellant’s name, address and contact

9 1 information and providing the basis for the appeal. All appeals shall be 2 subject to the appeal fees established in the Town’s Master Fee Schedule. 3 Appeals of an approval shall not be permitted to the extent that the appeal is 4 based on environmental effects from RF emissions that are in compliance 5 with all applicable FCC regulations. Appeals shall be decided in accordance 6 with time periods and procedures established by applicable laws and 7 regulations, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Federal 8 Communications Commission. 9 10 C. The Planning Director shall review all applications for new small cell wireless 11 facility to determine if the application is for an eligible facilities request for 12 modification of an eligible support structure, as those terms are defined in 47 13 U.S.C. Section 1455(a). If the Planning Director determines that the application 14 meets the requirements of an eligible facilities request, the Planning Director 15 shall ministerially approve the application in accordance with requirements under 16 47 C.F.R. section 1.40001. The grant or approval of a small wireless facility 17 permit to such eligible facilities request shall not be deemed to extend the 18 underlying permit term. 19 20 D. Standard Conditions of Approval for Small Cell Site Permits. 21 In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state 22 law and this Code that the Planning Director deems appropriate or required 23 under this Code, all small cell wireless facility permits under this subsection shall 24 include the following conditions of approval: 25 1. As-Built Plans. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director an as-built 26 set of plans and photographs depicting the entire small cell wireless facility as 27 modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety 28 (90) days after the completion of construction. 29 2. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant and any 30 successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the 31 Town, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, from and 32 against any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, regulatory 33 proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged 34 or threatened, including, but not limited to, actual attorney fees, litigation 35 expenses and court costs of any kind without restriction or limitation, incurred 36 in relation to, as a consequence of, arising out of or in any way attributable to, 37 actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, related to the small 38 wireless facility permit and the issuance of any permit or entitlement in 39 connection therewith. The applicant shall pay such obligations as they are 40 incurred by the Town, its employees, agents and officials, and in the event of 41 any claim or lawsuit, shall submit a deposit in such amount as the Town 42 reasonably determines necessary to protect the Town from exposure to fees, 43 costs or liability with respect to such claim or lawsuit. 44 3. Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all 45 applicable provisions of this code, any permit issued under this code, and all 46 other applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any failure by the Town to 47 enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of

10 1 its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other 2 applicable laws and regulations. 3 4. Compliance with approved plans. The proposed project shall be built in 4 compliance with the approved plans on file. 5 5. Violations. The small cell wireless facility shall be developed, maintained, and 6 operated in full compliance with the conditions of the Small Cell Site Permit, 7 any other applicable permit, and any law, statute, ordinance or other 8 regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site. Failure of the 9 applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be 10 a violation of these conditions. Any violation of this code, the conditions of 11 approval for the Small Cell Site Permit, or any other law, statute, ordinance or 12 other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site may 13 result in the revocation of this permit. The remedies specified in this section 14 shall be cumulative and the city may resort to any other remedy available at 15 law or in equity and resort to any one remedy shall not cause an election 16 precluding the use of any other remedy with respect to a violation. 17 18 General Plan Conformance 19 The Town’s General Plan contains several core values commonly held by the20 community. Two of those core values relate to living in an attractive, semi-rural21 community having high design standards, and living in a safe environment.22 Furthermore, one of the primary goals contained in the Community Design Chapter of23 the General Plan, CD1.7 – Wireless Communications Facilities, states:24 25 26 “Regulate the location and design of wireless communications facilities, satellite 27 dishes and other miscellaneous antennas in accordance with the Town’s 28 Ordinance No. 176 and the Federal Communications Act.” 29 Adoption of the proposed amendments to the MMC contained in the draft resolution30 would be consistent with these goals in that it would establish stringent but fair and31 reasonable design standards for small cell wireless facilities designed to maintain the32 integrity of the Town’s scenic and aesthetic character in a manner consistent with the33 limitations of the Carr Order, while also enhancing public safety and welfare by34 improving wireless communications service in those areas of the Town where coverage35 is currently limited.36 37 38 CEQA 39 The proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental40 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities41 and 15303, New Construction of Small Structures because the Municipal Code42 amendments contained therein would only permit the installation of small wireless43 telecommunication facilities on existing structures such as street lights and utility poles44 that would result in the minor alteration of such structures, or on small new structures45 such as fake trees or monopoles, and CEQA Guidelines, section 15061(b)(3), which46 provides that the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the47 48 potential for causing a significant effect on the environment

11 1 Alternatives 2 1. Adopt Resolution ___-2019 Recommending the Town Council Adopt an3 Ordinance Amending Section 8.144.010 – Purpose and Intent, of Title 8,4 Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code, as an urgency measure, to5 Reference “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” Amending Section 8.144.020 –6 Definitions, to Include a Definition of “Small Cell Wireless Facility,” Amending7 Section 8.144.030 to Exclude Small Cell Wireless Facilities, and Adding New8 Section 8.144.035 – General Development Standards and Procedures for Small9 Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate Deployment of Small Cell Wireless10 Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal11 Communications Commission Regulations. And,12 13 2. Adopt Resolution ___-2019 Recommending the Town Council Adopt an14 Ordinance Amending Section 8.144.010 – Purpose and Intent, of Title 8,15 Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code, to Reference “Small Cell16 Wireless Facilities,” Amending Section 8.144.020 – Definitions, to Include a17 Definition of “Small Cell Wireless Facility,” Amending Section 8.144.030 to18 Exclude Small Cell Wireless Facilities, and Adding New Section 8.144.035 –19 General Development Standards and Procedures for Small Cell Wireless20 Facilities, in Order to Facilitate Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities21 Within the Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal Communications22 Commission Regulations. Or23 24 3. Identify any additional desired amendments to the Draft Ordinance (while25 remaining consistent with the limitations of the Carr Order) and forward the item26 to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption on April 10, 2019.27 28 29 Recommendation 30 Adopt Resolution ___-2019 Recommending Town Council Adopt an Ordinance31 Amending Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes and32 Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal33 Code, as an urgency measure, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” and34 Amending Various Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to Add General Development35 Standards, Procedures and Aesthetic Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order36 to Facilitate Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way37 in Accordance with Federal Communications Commission Regulations.38 39 Adopt Resolution ___-2019 Recommending Town Council Adopt an Ordinance40 Amending Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes and41 Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal42 Code, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” and Amending Various Sections43 Within Chapter 8.144 to Add General Development Standards, Procedures and44 Aesthetic Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate Deployment of45 Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal46 Communications Commission Regulations.47 48

12 1 Report reviewed by: Cynthia Battenberg, Town Manager 2 Denise Bazzano, Assistant Town Attorney 3 4 5 Attachments: 6 7 A. Draft Resolution __-2019 Recommending Town Council Adopt an 8 Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, 9 Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and 10 Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code, as an urgency measure to 11 Reference “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” and Amending Various 12 Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to Add General Development Standards, 13 Procedures and Aesthetic Criteria for Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in 14 Order to Facilitate Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Within the 15 Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal Communications 16 Commission Regulations. 17  Draft Exhibit A to Resolution __-2019: Proposed Amendments to 18 Chapter 8.144 – Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes 19 and Miscellaneous Antennas 20 21 B. Draft Resolution __-2019 Recommending Town Council Adopt an 22 Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.144, “Wireless Communications Facilities, 23 Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and 24 Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code, to Reference “Small Cell Wireless 25 Facilities,” and Amending Various Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to Add 26 General Development Standards, Procedures and Aesthetic Criteria for 27 Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to Facilitate Deployment of Small 28 Cell Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way in Accordance with 29 Federal Communications Commission Regulations. 30  Draft Exhibit A to Resolution __-2019: Proposed Amendments to 31 Chapter 8.144 – Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes 32 and Miscellaneous Antennas 33 34 C. FCC 18-133 - Carr Order 35 36 D. Public Correspondence 37 38

13 ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT URGENCY RESOLUTION __-2019 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MORAGA

In the Matter of: Resolution No. XX-2019

Recommending the Town Council Adopt ) an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.144, ) “Wireless Communications Facilities, ) Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous ) Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and ) Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code, ) as an urgency measure, to Reference ) “Small Cell Wireless Facilities,” and ) Amending Various Sections Within ) Chapter 8.144 to Add General ) Development Standards, Procedures and ) Aesthetic Criteria for Small Cell Wireless ) Facilities, in Order to Facilitate ) Deployment of Small Cell Wireless ) Facilities Within the Public Right-of-Way ) in Accordance with Federal ) Communications Commission ) Regulations. ______

WHEREAS, on April 28, 1999 the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 176 establishing Chapter 8.144 – Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous Antennas (previously codified as Chapter 8-60) of the Moraga Municipal Code, which regulates wireless communications facilities, satellite dishes and antennas to minimize the potential health, safety and aesthetic impacts of such facilities on the community; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regularly establishes new and updated regulations aimed at improving wireless broadband communications infrastructure across the nation for the purpose of making available to all the people of the United States rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services, as well as for the purposes of national defense and promoting public safety through the use of such communications; and

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018 the FCC adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Order Report (the “Carr Order”) regarding the regulation of small cell wireless facilities which aims to facilitate the deployment of such facilities across the nation in order to help fulfill the purposes described above by requiring local governments to relax various standards governing the installation and operation of such facilities; and

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 1 April8,2019 WHEREAS, the Moraga Municipal Code (including Chapter 8.144) currently does not contain any regulations specifically governing small cell wireless facilities, and regulates such facilities in the same, more rigorous manner as other types of wireless facilities, inconsistent with the provisions of the Carr Order; and

WHEREAS, the Carr Order went into effect on January 14, 2019, but the FCC gave local governments until April 15, 2019 (an additional 180 days after the publication of the Order in the Federal Register) to make the necessary changes to aesthetic requirements in their zoning ordinances pertaining to wireless facilities to achieve consistency with the Order; and

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2019, the Town Council, after a duly-noticed public hearing, directed staff to prepare an Ordinance, adopted as an urgency measure, ahead of the April 15, 2019 deadline, followed by a comprehensive update to MMC Chapter 8.144 to address all inconsistencies between the code and applicable federal regulations regarding wireless facilities; and

WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 8.144 are necessary to achieve consistency with the Carr Order and to preserve the orderly processing of applications for small cell wireless facilities and to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community through consistent aesthetic regulations relating to those small cell wireless facilities through adoption of an Ordinance. In order to preserve the public peace, health and safety of the community, the Ordinance must be adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section 36937, as there is insufficient time to adopt an Ordinance through the standard introduction and second reading/adoption process while still meeting the April 15, 2019 deadline of the Order; and

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and took public testimony on the proposed amendments and considered evidence submitted in the form of the staff report.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga that:

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:

A. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance being recommended for adoption through this Resolution is to comply with recently-enacted Federal Communications Commission regulations pertaining to the facilitation of wireless broadband deployment nationwide by establishing reasonable, technically-feasible aesthetic requirements for small cell wireless facilities proposed for location within the public rights-of-way throughout the Town; and

B. The proposed Ordinance is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide personal wireless services; (2) prohibit or effectively prohibit any

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 2 April8,2019 entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (4) deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; (5) prohibit any collocation or modification that the Town may not deny under federal or state law; (6) impose any unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory or anticompetitive fees that exceed the reasonable cost to provide the services for which the fee(s) is/are charged; or (7) otherwise authorize the Town to preempt any applicable federal or state law; and

C. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities and 15303,, as the amendments pertain to the installation of small wireless telecommunication facilities on existing structures such as street lights and utility poles that would result in the minor alteration of such structures, or the creation of small new structures, and CEQA Guidelines, section 15061(b)(3), which provides that the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga does hereby recommend that the Town Council adopt an Ordinance containing amendments to Chapter 8.144 of the Town of Moraga Municipal Code, as drafted in the attached Exhibit “A” to this Resolution, as an urgency measure, pursuant to Government Code section 36937, in order to preserve the public peace, health and safety of the community.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga at a regular meeting held on April 8, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______Suzanne D’Arcy, Chair Attest:

______Derek Farmer, Planning Director

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 3 April8,2019 DRAFT EXHIBIT “A” TO RESOLUTION __-2019

The following sections of Chapter 8.144 are recommended for amendment with additional text to existing provisions shown underlined and deleted text shown as strikethrough:

8.144.010 - Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this article is to regulate wireless communication transmission and/or reception facilities (hereinafter called "wireless communications facilities") to minimize the potential health, safety and aesthetic impacts of such facilities on the community, as follows: A. To establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of wireless communication facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of the town; B. To establish development standards of wireless communications facilities in accordance with federal laws, including small cell wireless facilities as defined herein; C. To acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communications facilities within the town and to provide incentives for well designed and well placed facilities; D. To pursue additional benefits from the facilities to the public by encouraging the leasing of publicly owned properties where feasible for the development of wireless communication facilities; and E. Encourage the location of wireless communications facilities in commercial districts and generally discourage the location of such facilities in residential districts and visually sensitive areas.

8.144.020 - Definitions.

As used in this article: ... “Small Cell Wireless Facility” is a wireless communications facility that meets the following criteria: 1. The facility- (i) is mounted on a structure 50 feet or less in height including its antennas as defined in Section 1.1320(d) of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or (ii) is mounted on a structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (iii) does not extend the existing structure on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 4 April8,2019 2. Each antenna associated with the facility, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume. 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. ... 8.144.030 - General development standards.

The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new wireless communication facilities except small cell wireless facilities. A. Ground Mounted Equipment. All ground mounted wireless communication equipment, antennas, poles, dishes, cabinets, structures, towers or other appurtenances shall be: 1. Of a minimal functional height or no greater than twenty (20) feet, whichever is less; 2. Have a nonreflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to minimize visual impacts; 3. Shall be sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new vegetation and its proper irrigation where practical, or other screening may be required as a condition of approval. B. Roof and Building Mounted Equipment. Roof and building mounted equipment, including monopoles and antennas shall: 1. Be located as far away as feasible and aesthetically practicable from the outer edge of a building. Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or treated to match the exterior of the building or background visible beyond the antenna; 2. Avoid being mounted on the peaks of roofs to the greatest extent possible and all other related equipment shall be screened or hidden from view. C. A wireless communication facility shall comply with all applicable FCC standards for radio frequency emissions and shall not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. D. All new wireless communication facilities shall be collocated with existing and/or with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable. Collocation is discouraged when it will increase visual impacts. Service providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as light standards, utility poles and other structures where the collocation is found to minimize the overall visual impact.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 5 April8,2019 E. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night maintenance or emergencies. The lighting shall be constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. F. Where feasible, the location of commercial wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly-owned property or public easement or right-of-way. G. All equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with continued use by any collocated facility. The town shall be given thirty (30) days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of the facility prior to discontinuation of use. H. All proposals for wireless communications facilities shall include a description of the site selection process undertaken, including coverage objectives and alternative site analysis. I. Antennas and equipment buildings shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) feet from a residential structure and one hundred (100) feet from residential property line.

Section 8.144.035 – General development standards and procedures for small cell wireless facilities.

A. A small cell wireless facility may be constructed in all zoning districts upon issuance of a Small Cell Site Permit in accordance with this section, instead of an issuance of a conditional use permit under section 8.144.080. The following development standards shall apply to the issuance of a small wireless facilities permit, except for applications for an eligible facilities request as defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a): 1. All small cell wireless facilities proposed to be installed in the public right-of- way shall require submittal and ministerial design review approval of a Small Cell Site Permit application by the planning director or his or her designee prior to building permit approval for such facility. Additionally, applicants shall obtain any permits required under Chapter 12.06 and Chapter 14.04.

2. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public right-of-way shall pay the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town Council resolution;

3. All proposed installations on existing utility poles, street lights, traffic signals, electric, gas, and other utility structures, and other similar facilities as defined in section 12.06.020, located within the public right-of-way shall use the design techniques set forth in this section to minimize visual impacts to the public right of way. Antennas and pole-mounted equipment shall be

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 6 April8,2019 screened, concealed or disguised with shrouding matching the appearance of the existing structure or be integrated into the structure of the proposed facility so as to be hidden from view. Screening/concealing equipment shall be of minimal, functional size necessary to achieve concealment objectives under this subsection. Cabling and conduit shall be hidden from view by integrating such cabling or conduit into existing equipment where technically feasible, and visible spooling of cable shall be prohibited.

4. All cables or wiring associated with a facility shall be concealed within a sleeve between the bottom of the antenna and the mounting bracket.

5. All pole-mounted equipment and antennas shall be painted to match the color of the pole or other type of support structure to which it is attached.

6. All small cell wireless facilities shall include signage that accurately identifies the facility’s owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a phone number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. No other signage except that required by law or recommended by FCC, OSHA or other federal government agency for compliance with radio- frequency emissions regulations shall be allowed on any small cell wireless facility.

7. All non-antenna equipment, including equipment which is susceptible to being installed in an equipment cabinet, shall be installed underground unless the installation of such equipment underground is not technically feasible. This undergrounding requirement shall not apply to cabling and conduit necessary to mount the antenna of a small wireless facility on a new or existing pole, nor apply to non-antenna equipment concealed from public view by being structurally integrated into the construction of a new or existing pole for any utility.

8. All vents, exhausts and similar features for undergrounded equipment shall be flush to grade to the maximum extent feasible.

9. In no case shall a small wireless facility block any public sidewalk or functionally impede an accessible path of travel.

10. All disturbed or damaged pavement and/or landscaping within or adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be replaced and areas of bare or disturbed soils must be revegetated upon completion of an installation.

11. Landscaping shall be required to provide screening to minimize visual impacts where site conditions allow for installation of new landscaping. Landscaping shall not be required where installation shall be entirely on

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 7 April8,2019 existing paved surfaces. New landscaping shall be drought-tolerant and designed and installed to be natural in appearance.

12. The Town shall be given thirty (30) days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of the facility by the service provider or its designee prior to the discontinuation. All equipment associated with a discontinued facility shall be removed within sixty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with continued use by any collocated facility. The Town may deem a facility abandoned and discontinued under this subsection if the permittee fails to respond within 30 calendar days to a written notice sent by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, from the planning director that states the basis for the planning director’s belief that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days. A decision of the planning director to deem a facility abandoned shall be provided to the service provider in writing, by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be subject to appeal in accordance with section 1.16.010. A permit shall not be rescinded for discontinuance until the completion of the applicable appeal or the end of the applicable appeal period if no timely appeal is filed.

B. All applications for small cell wireless facilities shall be subject to the following procedures: 1. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public right-of-way shall submit an application to the planning department and pay the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town Council resolution; 2. Within 10 days of submission of any application, the planning director or designee shall determine whether the application is complete, and if not complete, shall provide the applicant notice that the application is incomplete and identify materials or information needed to complete the application;

3. The planning director shall approve or deny an application ministerially and without a public hearing;

4. The planning director may approve or deny an application when he/she finds that:

a. The proposed project meets the definition of a small cell wireless facility as defined Section 8.144.020;

b. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements prescribed in Section 8.144.035(A), unless the application of such requirements to the proposed small cell wireless facility would result in an effective prohibition of service;

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 8 April8,2019 c. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will comply with all applicable health and safety regulations, which include without limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act and all FCC regulations relating to RF emissions; and

Conditions of approval imposed by the planning director shall be limited to compliance with requirements set forth in this section, other sections of the city code applicable to infrastructure deployments, or requirements necessary to comply with applicable state or federal law. 5. Within five calendar days after the planning director acts on an application or before the FCC shot clock expires (whichever occurs first), he/she shall notify the applicant of such action by written notice. If the planning director denies the application (with or without prejudice), the written notice must contain the reason(s) for the denial.

6. Any decision to approve or deny a small cell wireless facility shall be appealable directly to the Town Council. Appeals shall be filed within five business days of a decision having been rendered. Any such appeal shall include a letter identifying the appellant’s name, address and contact information and providing the basis for the appeal. All appeals shall be subject to the appeal fees established in the Town’s Master Fee Schedule. Appeals of an approval shall not be permitted to the extent that the appeal is based on environmental effects from RF emissions that are in compliance with all applicable FCC regulations. Appeals shall be decided in accordance with time periods and procedures established by applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Federal Communications Commission.

C. The planning director shall review all applications for new small cell wireless facility to determine if the application is for an eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure, as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a). If the planning director determines that the application meets the requirements of an eligible facilities request, the planning director shall ministerially approve the application in accordance with requirements under 47 C.F.R. section 1.40001. The grant or approval of a small wireless facility permit to such eligible facilities request shall not be deemed to extend the underlying permit term.

D. Standard Conditions of Approval for Small Cell Site Permits. In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all small cell wireless facility permits under this subsection shall include the following conditions of approval: 1. As-Built Plans. The applicant shall submit to the director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire small cell wireless facility as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 9 April8,2019 2. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant and any successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, from and against any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, but not limited to, actual attorney fees, litigation expenses and court costs of any kind without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, arising out of or in any way attributable to, actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, related to the small wireless facility permit and the issuance of any permit or entitlement in connection therewith. The applicant shall pay such obligations as they are incurred by the Town, its employees, agents and officials, and in the event of any claim or lawsuit, shall submit a deposit in such amount as the Town reasonably determines necessary to protect the Town from exposure to fees, costs or liability with respect to such claim or lawsuit. 3. Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of this code, any permit issued under this code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any failure by the Town to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. 4. Compliance with approved plans. The proposed project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file. 5. Violations. The small cell wireless facility shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions of theSmall Cell Site Permit, any other applicable permit, and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site. Failure of the applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Any violation of this code, the conditions of approval for theSmall Cell Site Permit, or any other law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site may result in the revocation of this permit. The remedies specified in this section shall be cumulative and the city may resort to any other remedy available at law or in equity and resort to any one remedy shall not cause an election precluding the use of any other remedy with respect to a violation.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 10 April8,2019 ATTACHMENT B

DRAFT RESOLUTION __-2019 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MORAGA

In the Matter of: Resolution No. XX-2019

Recommending the Town Council Adopt ) an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.144, ) “Wireless Communications Facilities, ) Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous ) Antennas” of Title 8, Planning and ) Zoning, of the Moraga Municipal Code to ) Reference “Small Cell Wireless ) Facilities,” and Amending Various ) Sections Within Chapter 8.144 to Add ) General Development Standards, ) Procedures and Aesthetic Criteria for ) Small Cell Wireless Facilities, in Order to ) Facilitate Deployment of Small Cell ) Wireless Facilities Within the Public ) Right-of-Way in Accordance with Federal ) Communications Commission ) Regulations. ) ______

WHEREAS, on April 28, 1999 the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 176 establishing Chapter 8.144 – Wireless Communications Facilities, Satellite Dishes and Miscellaneous Antennas (previously codified as Chapter 8-60) of the Moraga Municipal Code, which regulates wireless communications facilities, satellite dishes and antennas to minimize the potential health, safety and aesthetic impacts of such facilities on the community; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regularly establishes new and updated regulations aimed at improving wireless broadband communications infrastructure across the nation for the purpose of making available to all the people of the United States rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services, as well as for the purposes of national defense and promoting public safety through the use of such communications; and

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018 the FCC adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Order Report (the “Carr Order”) regarding the regulation of small cell wireless facilities which aims to facilitate the deployment of such facilities across the nation in order to help fulfill the purposes described above by requiring local governments to relax various standards governing the installation and operation of such facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Moraga Municipal Code (including Chapter 8.144) currently does not contain any regulations specifically governing small cell wireless facilities, and

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 1 April8,2019 regulates such facilities in the same, more rigorous manner as other types of wireless facilities, inconsistent with the provisions of the Carr Order; and

WHEREAS, the Carr Order went into effect on January 14, 2019, but the FCC gave local governments until April 15, 2019 (an additional 180 days after the publication of the Order in the Federal Register) to make the necessary changes to aesthetic requirements in their zoning ordinances pertaining to wireless facilities to achieve consistency with the Order; and

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2019, the Town Council, after a duly-noticed public hearing, directed staff to prepare an Ordinance ahead of the April 15, 2019 deadline, followed by a comprehensive update to MMC Chapter 8.144 to address all inconsistencies between the code and applicable federal regulations regarding wireless facilities; and

WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 8.144 are necessary to achieve consistency with the Carr Order and to preserve the orderly processing of applications for small cell wireless facilities and to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community through consistent aesthetic regulations relating to those small cell wireless facilities through adoption of an Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and took public testimony on the proposed amendments and considered evidence submitted in the form of the staff report.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga that:

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:

A. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance being recommended for adoption through this Resolution is to comply with recently-enacted Federal Communications Commission regulations pertaining to the facilitation of wireless broadband deployment nationwide by establishing reasonable, technically-feasible aesthetic requirements for small cell wireless facilities proposed for location within the public rights-of-way throughout the Town; and

B. The proposed Ordinance is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit any wireless service provider’s ability to provide personal wireless services; (2) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (4) deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 2 April8,2019 emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; (5) prohibit any collocation or modification that the Town may not deny under federal or state law; (6) impose any unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory or anticompetitive fees that exceed the reasonable cost to provide the services for which the fee(s) is/are charged; or (7) otherwise authorize the Town to preempt any applicable federal or state law; and

C. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities and 15303, as the amendments pertain to the installation of small wireless telecommunication facilities on existing structures such as street lights and utility poles that would result in the minor alteration of such structures, or the creation of small new structures, and CEQA Guidelines, section 15061(b)(3), which provides that the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga does hereby recommend that the Town Council adopt an Ordinance containing amendments to Chapter 8.144 of the Town of Moraga Municipal Code, as drafted in the attached Exhibit “A” to this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Moraga at a regular meeting held on April 8, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______Suzanne D’Arcy, Chair Attest:

______Derek Farmer, Planning Director

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 3 April8,2019 DRAFT EXHIBIT “A” TO RESOLUTION __-2019

The following sections of Chapter 8.144 are recommended for amendment with additional text to existing provisions shown underlined and deleted text shown as strikethrough:

8.144.010 - Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this article is to regulate wireless communication transmission and/or reception facilities (hereinafter called "wireless communications facilities") to minimize the potential health, safety and aesthetic impacts of such facilities on the community, as follows: A. To establish development standards to regulate the placement and design of wireless communication facilities so as to preserve the unique visual character of the town; B. To establish development standards of wireless communications facilities in accordance with federal laws, including small cell wireless facilities as defined herein; C. To acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communications facilities within the town and to provide incentives for well designed and well placed facilities; D. To pursue additional benefits from the facilities to the public by encouraging the leasing of publicly owned properties where feasible for the development of wireless communication facilities; and E. Encourage the location of wireless communications facilities in commercial districts and generally discourage the location of such facilities in residential districts and visually sensitive areas.

8.144.020 - Definitions.

As used in this article: ... “Small Cell Wireless Facility” is a wireless communications facility that meets the following criteria: 1. The facility- (i) is mounted on a structure 50 feet or less in height including its antennas as defined in Section 1.1320(d) of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or (ii) is mounted on a structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (iii) does not extend the existing structure on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 4 April8,2019 2. Each antenna associated with the facility, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume. 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume.

8.144.030 - General development standards.

The following development standards shall apply to the development of all new wireless communication facilities except small cell wireless facilities. A. Ground Mounted Equipment. All ground mounted wireless communication equipment, antennas, poles, dishes, cabinets, structures, towers or other appurtenances shall be: 1. Of a minimal functional height or no greater than twenty (20) feet, whichever is less; 2. Have a nonreflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to minimize visual impacts; 3. Shall be sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new vegetation and its proper irrigation where practical, or other screening may be required as a condition of approval. B. Roof and Building Mounted Equipment. Roof and building mounted equipment, including monopoles and antennas shall: 1. Be located as far away as feasible and aesthetically practicable from the outer edge of a building. Antennas attached to a building shall be painted or treated to match the exterior of the building or background visible beyond the antenna; 2. Avoid being mounted on the peaks of roofs to the greatest extent possible and all other related equipment shall be screened or hidden from view. C. A wireless communication facility shall comply with all applicable FCC standards for radio frequency emissions and shall not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. D. All new wireless communication facilities shall be collocated with existing and/or with other planned new facilities whenever feasible and aesthetically desirable. Collocation is discouraged when it will increase visual impacts. Service providers are encouraged to collocate with other facilities such as light standards, utility poles and other structures where the collocation is found to minimize the overall visual impact.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 5 April8,2019 E. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night maintenance or emergencies. The lighting shall be constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled. F. Where feasible, the location of commercial wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly-owned property or public easement or right-of-way. G. All equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be removed within thirty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with continued use by any collocated facility. The town shall be given thirty (30) days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of the facility prior to discontinuation of use. H. All proposals for wireless communications facilities shall include a description of the site selection process undertaken, including coverage objectives and alternative site analysis. I. Antennas and equipment buildings shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) feet from a residential structure and one hundred (100) feet from residential property line.

Section 8.144.035 – General development standards and procedures for small cell wireless facilities.

A. A small cell wireless facility may be constructed in all zoning districts upon issuance of a Small Cell Site Permit in accordance with this section, instead of an issuance of a conditional use permit under section 8.144.080. The following development standards shall apply to the issuance of a small wireless facilities permit, except for applications for an eligible facilities request as defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a): 1. All small cell wireless facilities proposed to be installed in the public right-of- way shall require submittal and ministerial design review approval of a Small Cell Site Permit application by the planning director or his or her designee prior to building permit approval for such facility. Additionally, applicants shall obtain any permits required under Chapter 12.06 and Chapter 14.04.

2. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public right-of-way shall pay the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town Council resolution;

3. All proposed installations on existing utility poles, street lights, traffic signals, electric, gas, and other utility structures, and other similar facilities as defined in section 12.06.020, located within the public right-of-way shall use the design techniques set forth in this section to minimize visual impacts to the public right of way. Antennas and pole-mounted equipment shall be

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 6 April8,2019 screened, concealed or disguised with shrouding matching the appearance of the existing structure or be integrated into the structure of the proposed facility so as to be hidden from view. Screening/concealing equipment shall be of minimal, functional size necessary to achieve concealment objectives under this subsection. Cabling and conduit shall be hidden from view by integrating such cabling or conduit into existing equipment where technically feasible, and visible spooling of cable shall be prohibited.

4. All cables or wiring associated with a facility shall be concealed within a sleeve between the bottom of the antenna and the mounting bracket.

5. All pole-mounted equipment and antennas shall be painted to match the color of the pole or other type of support structure to which it is attached.

6. All small cell wireless facilities shall include signage that accurately identifies the facility’s owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a phone number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. No other signage except that required by law or recommended by FCC, OSHA or other federal government agency for compliance with radio- frequency emissions regulations shall be allowed on any small cell wireless facility.

7. All non-antenna equipment, including equipment which is susceptible to being installed in an equipment cabinet, shall be installed underground unless the installation of such equipment underground is not technically feasible. This undergrounding requirement shall not apply to cabling and conduit necessary to mount the antenna of a small wireless facility on a new or existing pole, nor apply to non-antenna equipment concealed from public view by being structurally integrated into the construction of a new or existing pole for any utility.

8. All vents, exhausts and similar features for undergrounded equipment shall be flush to grade to the maximum extent feasible.

9. In no case shall a small wireless facility block any public sidewalk or functionally impede an accessible path of travel.

10. All disturbed or damaged pavement and/or landscaping within or adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be replaced and areas of bare or disturbed soils must be revegetated upon completion of an installation.

11. Landscaping shall be required to provide screening to minimize visual impacts where site conditions allow for installation of new landscaping. Landscaping shall not be required where installation shall be entirely on

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 7 April8,2019 existing paved surfaces. New landscaping shall be drought-tolerant and designed and installed to be natural in appearance.

12. The Town shall be given thirty (30) days’ notice of intent to discontinue use of the facility by the service provider or its designee prior to the discontinuation. All equipment associated with a discontinued facility shall be removed within sixty days of the discontinuation of use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition in a manner consistent with continued use by any collocated facility. The Town may deem a facility abandoned and discontinued under this subsection if the permittee fails to respond within 30 calendar days to a written notice sent by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, from the planning director that states the basis for the planning director’s belief that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days. A decision of the planning director to deem a facility abandoned shall be provided to the service provider in writing, by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be subject to appeal in accordance with section 1.16.010. A permit shall not be rescinded for discontinuance until the completion of the applicable appeal or the end of the applicable appeal period if no timely appeal is filed.

B. All applications for small cell wireless facilities shall be subject to the following procedures: 1. Any applicant proposing to install a small cell wireless facility within the public right-of-way shall submit an application to the planning department and pay the fee for a Small Cell Site Permit established by Town Council resolution; 2. Within 10 days of submission of any application, the planning director or designee shall determine whether the application is complete, and if not complete, shall provide the applicant notice that the application is incomplete and identify materials or information needed to complete the application;

3. The planning director shall approve or deny an application ministerially and without a public hearing;

4. The planning director may approve or deny an application when he/she finds that:

a. The proposed project meets the definition of a small cell wireless facility as defined Section 8.144.020;

b. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements prescribed in Section 8.144.035(A), unless the application of such requirements to the proposed small cell wireless facility would result in an effective prohibition of service;

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 8 April8,2019 c. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will comply with all applicable health and safety regulations, which include without limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act and all FCC regulations relating to RF emissions; and

Conditions of approval imposed by the planning director shall be limited to compliance with requirements set forth in this section, other sections of the city code applicable to infrastructure deployments, or requirements necessary to comply with applicable state or federal law. 5. Within five calendar days after the planning director acts on an application or before the FCC shot clock expires (whichever occurs first), he/she shall notify the applicant of such action by written notice. If the planning director denies the application (with or without prejudice), the written notice must contain the reason(s) for the denial.

6. Any decision to approve or deny a small cell wireless facility shall be appealable directly to the Town Council. Appeals shall be filed within five business days of a decision having been rendered. Any such appeal shall include a letter identifying the appellant’s name, address and contact information and providing the basis for the appeal. All appeals shall be subject to the appeal fees established in the Town’s Master Fee Schedule. Appeals of an approval shall not be permitted to the extent that the appeal is based on environmental effects from RF emissions that are in compliance with all applicable FCC regulations. Appeals shall be decided in accordance with time periods and procedures established by applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Federal Communications Commission.

C. The planning director shall review all applications for new small cell wireless facility to determine if the application is for an eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure, as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a). If the planning director determines that the application meets the requirements of an eligible facilities request, the planning director shall ministerially approve the application in accordance with requirements under 47 C.F.R. section 1.40001. The grant or approval of a small wireless facility permit to such eligible facilities request shall not be deemed to extend the underlying permit term.

D. Standard Conditions of Approval for Small Cell Site Permits. In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all small cell wireless facility permits under this subsection shall include the following conditions of approval: 1. As-Built Plans. The applicant shall submit to the director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire small cell wireless facility as modified,

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 9 April8,2019 including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. 2. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant and any successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, from and against any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, but not limited to, actual attorney fees, litigation expenses and court costs of any kind without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, arising out of or in any way attributable to, actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, related to the small wireless facility permit and the issuance of any permit or entitlement in connection therewith. The applicant shall pay such obligations as they are incurred by the Town, its employees, agents and officials, and in the event of any claim or lawsuit, shall submit a deposit in such amount as the Town reasonably determines necessary to protect the Town from exposure to fees, costs or liability with respect to such claim or lawsuit. 3. Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of this code, any permit issued under this code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any failure by the Town to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. 4. Compliance with approved plans. The proposed project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file. 5. Violations. The small cell wireless facility shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions of theSmall Cell Site Permit, any other applicable permit, and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site. Failure of the applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Any violation of this code, the conditions of approval for theSmall Cell Site Permit, or any other law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the site may result in the revocation of this permit. The remedies specified in this section shall be cumulative and the city may resort to any other remedy available at law or in equity and resort to any one remedy shall not cause an election precluding the use of any other remedy with respect to a violation.

ResolutionNo.XX-2019 10 April8,2019 ATTACHMENT C CARR ORDER Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by ) WT Docket No. 17-79 Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment ) ) Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by ) WC Docket No. 17-84 Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment )

DECLARATORY RULING AND THIRD REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: September 26, 2018 Released: September 27, 2018

By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements; Commissioner Rosenworcel approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 II. BACKGROUND...... 14 A. Legal Background...... 14 B. The Need for Commission Action ...... 23 III. DECLARATORY RULING ...... 30 A. Overview of the Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) Framework Relevant to Small Wireless Facilities Deployment ...... 34 B. State and Local Fees ...... 43 C. Other State and Local Requirements that Govern Small Facilities Deployment...... 81 D. States and Localities Act in Their Regulatory Capacities When Authorizing and Setting Terms for Wireless Infrastructure Deployment in Public Rights of Way...... 92 E. Responses to Challenges to Our Interpretive Authority and Other Arguments...... 98 IV. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER ...... 103 A. New Shot Clocks for Small Wireless Facility Deployments ...... 104 1. Two New Section 332 Shot Clocks for Deployment of Small Wireless Facilities ...... 105 2. Batched Applications for Small Wireless Facilities...... 113 B. New Remedy for Violations of the Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks...... 116 C. Clarification of Issues Related to All Section 332 Shot Clocks ...... 132 1. Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)...... 132 2. Codification of Section 332 Shot Clocks ...... 138 3. Collocations on Structures Not Previously Zoned for Wireless Use ...... 140 4. When Shot Clocks Start and Incomplete Applications ...... 141 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS...... 148 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES...... 151 APPENDIX A -- Final Rules APPENDIX B -- Comments and Reply Comments APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

I. INTRODUCTION 1. America is in the midst of a transition to the next generation of wireless services, known as 5G. These new services can unleash a new wave of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic opportunity for communities across the country. The FCC is committed to doing our part to help ensure the United States wins the global race to 5G to the benefit of all Americans. Today’s action is the next step in the FCC’s ongoing efforts to remove regulatory barriers that would unlawfully inhibit the deployment of infrastructure necessary to support these new services. We proceed by drawing on the balanced and commonsense ideas generated by many of our state and local partners in their own small cell bills. 2. Supporting the deployment of 5G and other next-generation wireless services through smart infrastructure policy is critical. Indeed, upgrading to these new services will, in many ways, represent a more fundamental change than the transition to prior generations of wireless service. 5G can enable increased competition for a range of services—including broadband—support new healthcare and Internet of Things applications, speed the transition to life-saving connected car technologies, and create jobs. It is estimated that wireless providers will invest $275 billion1 over the next decade in next- generation wireless infrastructure deployments, which should generate an expected three million new jobs and boost our nation’s GDP by half a trillion dollars.2 Moving quickly to enable this transition is important, as a new report forecasts that speeding 5G infrastructure deployment by even one year would unleash an additional $100 billion to the U.S. economy.3 Removing barriers can also ensure that every community gets a fair shot at these deployments and the opportunities they enable. 3. The challenge for policymakers is that the deployment of these new networks will look different than the 3G and 4G deployments of the past. Over the last few years, providers have been increasingly looking to densify their networks with new small cell deployments that have antennas often no larger than a small backpack. From a regulatory perspective, these raise different issues than the construction of large, 200-foot towers that marked the 3G and 4G deployments of the past. Indeed, estimates predict that upwards of 80 percent of all new deployments will be small cells going forward.4 To support advanced 4G or 5G offerings, providers must build out small cells at a faster pace and at a far greater density of deployment than before. 4. To date, regulatory obstacles have threatened the widespread deployment of these new services and, in turn, U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC has lifted some of those barriers, including our decision in March 2018, which excluded small cells from some of the federal review procedures designed for those larger, 200-foot towers. But as the record here shows, the FCC must continue to act in partnership with our state and local leaders that are adopting forward leaning policies. 5. Many states and localities have acted to update and modernize their approaches to small cell deployments. They are working to promote deployment and balance the needs of their communities. At the same time, the record shows that problems remain. In fact, many state and local officials have urged the FCC to continue our efforts in this proceeding and adopt additional reforms. Indeed, we have

1 See Accenture Strategy, Accelerating Future Economic Value from the Wireless Industry at 2 (2018) (Accelerating Future Economic Value Report), https://www.ctia.org/news/accelerating-future-economic-value-from-the-wireless- industry, attached to Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice Pres., Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed July 19, 2018). 2 See Accenture Strategy, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, (2017) http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/how-5g-can-help-municipalities-become- vibrantsmart-cities-accenture.pdf; attached to Letter from Scott Bergmann, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 16-421, (filed Jan. 13, 2017). 3 Accelerating Future Economic Value Report at 2. 4 Letter from John T. Scott, Counsel for Mobilitie, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79 at 2-3 (filed Sept. 12, 2018). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

heard from a number of local officials that the excessive fees or other costs associated with deploying small scale wireless infrastructure in large or otherwise “must serve” cities are materially inhibiting the buildout of wireless services in their own communities. 6. We thus find that now is the appropriate time to move forward with an approach geared at the conduct that threatens to limit the deployment of 5G services. In reaching our decision today, we have benefited from the input provided by a range of stakeholders, including state and local elected officials.5 FCC leadership spent substantial time over the course of this proceeding meeting directly with local elected officials in their jurisdictions. In light of those discussions and our consideration of the record here, we reach a decision today that does not preempt nearly any of the provisions passed in recent state-level small cell bills. We have reached a balanced, commonsense approach, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all regime. This ensures that state and local elected officials will continue to play a key role in reviewing and promoting the deployment of wireless infrastructure in their communities. 7. Although many states and localities support our efforts, we acknowledge that there are others who advocated for different approaches.6 We have carefully considered these views, but nevertheless find our actions here necessary and fully supported. By building on state and local ideas, today’s action boosts the United States’ standing in the race to 5G. According to a study submitted by Corning, our action would eliminate around $2 billion in unnecessary costs, which would stimulate around $2.4 billion of additional buildouts.7 And that study shows that such new service would be

5 See, e.g., Letter from Brian D. Hill, Ohio State Representative, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Aug. 31, 2018) (“While the FCC and the Ohio Legislature have worked to reduce the timeline for 5G deployment, the same cannot be said for all local and state governments. Regulations written in a different era continue to dictate the regulatory process for 5G infrastructure”); Letter from Maureen Davey, Commissioner, Stillwater County, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (“[T]he Commission’s actions to lower regulatory barriers can enable more capital spending to flow to areas like ours. Reducing fees and shortening review times in urban areas, thereby lowering the cost of deployment in such areas, can promote speedier deployment across all of America.”); Letter from Board of County Commissioners, Yellowstone County, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 21, 2018) (“Reducing these regulatory barriers by setting guidelines on fees, siting requirements and review timeframes, will promote investment including rural areas like ours.”); Letter from Board of Commissioners, Harney County, Oregon, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (“By taking action to speed and reduce the costs of deployment across the country, and create a more uniform regulatory framework, the Commission will lower the cost of deployment, enabling more investment in both urban and rural communities.”); Letter from Niraj J. Antani, Ohio State Representative, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) (“[T]o truly expedite the small cell deployment process, broader government action is needed on more than just the state level.”); Letter from Michael C. Taylor, Mayor, City of Sterling Heights, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Aug. 30, 2018) (“[T]here are significant, tangible benefits to having a nation-wide rule that promotes the deployment of next-generation wireless access without concern that excessive regulation or small cell siting fees slows down the process.”). 6 See, e.g., Letter from Linda Morse, Mayor, City of Manhattan, KS to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 13, 2018) (City of Manhattan, KS Sept. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Ronny Berdugo, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Damon Connolly, Marin County Board of Supervisors to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Damon Connolly Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 7 See Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Counsel to Corning, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1, Attach. A at 2-3 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (Corning Sept. 5, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 deployed where it is needed most: 97 percent of new deployments would be in rural and suburban communities that otherwise would be on the wrong side of the digital divide.8 8. The FCC will keep pressing ahead to ensure that every community in the country gets a fair shot at the opportunity that next-generation wireless services can enable. As detailed in the sections that follow, we do so by taking the following steps. 9. In the Declaratory Ruling, we note that a number of appellate courts have articulated different and often conflicting views regarding the scope and nature of the limits Congress imposed on state and local governments through Sections 253 and 332. We thus address and reconcile this split in authorities by taking three main actions. 10. First, we express our agreement with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits that the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in 1997 by the Clinton-era FCC’s California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as a prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332. 11. Second, we note, as numerous courts and prior FCC cases have recognized, that state and local fees and other charges associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can unlawfully prohibit the provision of service. At the same time, courts have articulated various approaches to determining the types of fees that run afoul of Congress’s limits in Sections 253 and 332. We thus clarify the particular standard that governs the fees and charges that violate Sections 253 and 332 when it comes to the Small Wireless Facilities at issue in this decision.9 Namely, fees are only permitted to the extent that they are nondiscriminatory and represent a reasonable approximation of the locality’s reasonable costs. In this section, we also identify specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities that presumptively comply with this standard. We do so to help avoid unnecessary litigation over fees. 12. Third, we focus on a subset of other, non-fee provisions of local law that could also operate as prohibitions on service. We do so in particular by addressing state and local consideration of aesthetic concerns in the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities, recognizing that certain reasonable aesthetic considerations do not run afoul of Sections 253 and 332. This responds in particular to many concerns we heard from state and local governments about deployments in historic districts.

8 Id. 9 “Small Wireless Facilities,” as used herein and consistent with section 1.1312(e)(2), encompasses facilities that meet the following conditions: (1) The facilities— (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section 1.1320(d), or (ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter; (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

13. Next, we issue a Report and Order that addresses the “shot clocks” governing the review of wireless infrastructure deployments. We take three main steps in this regard. First, we create a new set of shot clocks tailored to support the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. In particular, we read Sections 253 and 332 as allowing 60 days for reviewing the application for attachment of a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure and 90 days for the review of an application for attachment of a small wireless facility using a new structure. Second, while we do not adopt a “deemed granted” remedy for violations of our new shot clocks, we clarify that failing to issue a decision up or down during this time period is not simply a “failure to act” within the meaning of applicable law. Rather, missing the deadline also constitutes a presumptive prohibition. We would thus expect any locality that misses the deadline to issue any necessary permits or authorizations without further delay. We also anticipate that a provider would have a strong case for quickly obtaining an injunction from a court that compels the issuance of all permits in these types of cases. Third, we clarify a number of issues that are relevant to all of the FCC’s shot clocks, including the types of authorizations subject to these time periods. II. BACKGROUND A. Legal Background 14. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress enacted sweeping new provisions intended to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. As U.S. Courts of Appeals have stated, “[t]he [1996] Act ‘represents a dramatic shift in the nature of telecommunications regulation.’”10 The Senate floor manager, Senator Larry Pressler, stated that “[t]his is the most comprehensive deregulation of the telecommunications industry in history.”11 Indeed, the purpose of the 1996 Act is to “provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework . . . by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.”12 The conference report on the 1996 Act similarly indicates that Congress “intended to remove all barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services.”13 The 1996 Act thus makes clear Congress’s commitment to a competitive telecommunications marketplace unhindered by unnecessary regulations, explicitly directing the FCC to “promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”14 15. Several provisions of the 1996 Act speak directly to Congress’s determination that certain state and local regulations are unlawful. Section 253(a) provides that “[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”15 Courts have observed that Section 253 represents a “broad preemption of laws that inhibit competition.”16 16. The Commission has issued several rulings interpreting and providing guidance regarding the language Congress used in Section 253. For instance, in the 1997 California Payphone decision, the Commission, under the leadership of then Chairman William Kennard, stated that, in determining whether a state or local law has the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services, it

10 Sprint Telephony PCS LP v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 575 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (County of San Diego) (quoting Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Pub. Improvement Comm’n, 184 F.3d 88, 97 (1st Cir. 1999)). 11 141 Cong. Rec. S8197 (daily ed. June 12, 1995). 12 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–458, at 113 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. (100 Stat. 5) 124. 13 S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 126 (1996) (Conf. Rep.). 14 Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 100 Stat. 56 (1996); see also AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371 (1999) (noting that the 1996 Act “fundamentally restructures local telephone markets” to facilitate market entry); Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 857-58 (1997) (“The Telecommunications Act was an unusually important legislative enactment . . . designed to promote competition.”). 15 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 16 Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Telecomm. Reg. Bd. of Puerto Rico, 189 F.3d 1, 11 n.7 (1st Cir. 1999). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

“consider[s] whether the ordinance materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”17 17. Similar to Section 253, Congress specified in Section 332(c)(7) that “[t]he regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”18 Clause (B)(ii) of that section further provides that “[a] State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.”19 Section 332(c)(7) generally preserves state and local authority over the “placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities” but with the important limitations described above.20 Section 332(c)(7) also sets forth a judicial remedy, stating that “[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government” that is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7) “may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.”21 The provision further directs the court to “decide such action on an expedited basis.”22 18. The Commission has previously interpreted the language Congress used and the limits it imposed on state and local authority in Section 332. For instance, in interpreting Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the Commission has found that “a State or local government that denies an application for personal wireless service facilities siting solely because ‘one or more carriers serve a given geographic market’ has engaged in unlawful regulation that ‘prohibits or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,’ within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).”23 In adopting this interpretation, the Commission explained that its “construction of the provision achieves a balance that is most consistent with the relevant goals of the Communications Act” and its understanding that “[i]n promoting the construction of nationwide wireless networks by multiple carriers, Congress sought ultimately to improve service quality and lower prices for consumers.”24 The Commission also noted that an alternative interpretation would “diminish the service provided to [a wireless provider’s] customers.”25

17 California Payphone Ass’n, 12 FCC Rcd 14191, 14206, para. 31 (1997) (California Payphone). 18 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). 19 47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 20 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) (stating that, “[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities”). The statute defines “personal wireless services” to include CMRS, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C). In 2012, Congress expressly modified this preservation of local authority by enacting Section 6409(a), which requires local governments to approve certain types of facilities siting applications “[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified in substantial part as Section 332(c)(7)] . . . or any other provision of law.” Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C. § 6409(a)(1). 21 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 22 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 23 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7) to Ensure Timely Siting Review, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd 13994, 14016, para. 56 (2009) (2009 Declaratory Ruling), aff’d, City of Arlington v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2012) (City of Arlington), aff’d, 569 U.S. 290 (2013). 24 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 RCC Rcd at 14017-18, para. 61. 25 Id. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

19. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission acted to speed the deployment of then- new 4G services and concluded that, “[g]iven the evidence of unreasonable delays [in siting decisions] and the public interest in avoiding such delays,” it should offer guidance regarding the meaning of the statutory phrases “reasonable period of time” and “failure to act” “in order to clarify when an adversely affected service provider may take a dilatory State or local government to court.”26 The Commission interpreted “reasonable period of time” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) to be 90 days for processing collocation applications and 150 days for processing applications other than collocations. 27 The Commission further determined that failure to meet the applicable time frame enables an applicant to pursue judicial relief within the next 30 days.28 In litigation involving the 90-day and 150-day time frames, the locality may attempt to “rebut the presumption that the established timeframes are reasonable.”29 If the agency fails to make such a showing, it may face “issuance of an injunction granting the application.”30 In its 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 31 the Commission clarified that the time frames under Section 332(c)(7) are presumptively reasonable and begin to run when the application is submitted, not when it is found to be complete by a siting authority.32 20. In 2012, Congress adopted Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (the Spectrum Act), which provides further evidence of Congressional intent to limit state and local laws that operate as barriers to infrastructure deployment. It states that, “[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified as 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)] or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”33 Subsection (a)(2) defines the term “eligible facilities request” as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves (a) collocation of new transmission equipment; (b) removal of transmission equipment; or (c) replacement of transmission equipment.34 In implementing Section 6409 and in an effort to “advance[e] Congress’s goal

26 Id. at 14008, para. 37; see also id. at 14029 (Statement of Chairman Julius Genachowski) (“[T]he rules we adopt today . . . will have an important effect in speeding up wireless carriers’ ability to build new 4G networks--which will in turn expand and improve the range of wireless choices available to American consumers.”). 27 Id. at 14012, para. 45. 28 Id. at 14005, 14012, paras. 32, 45. 29 Id. at 14008-10, 14013-14, paras. 37-42, 49-50. 30 Id. at 14009, para. 38; see also City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115 (2005) (proper remedies for Section 332(c)(7) violations include injunctions but not constitutional tort damages). 31 Specifically, the Commission determined that once a siting application is considered complete for purposes of triggering the Section 332(c)(7) shot clocks, those shot clocks run regardless of any moratoria imposed by state or local governments, and the shot clocks apply to DAS and small-cell deployments so long as they are or will be used to provide “personal wireless services.” Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report & Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865, 12966, 12973, paras. 243, 270, (2014) (2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order), aff’d, Montgomery County v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015) (Montgomery County); see also Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 3330, 3339, para. 22 (2017) (Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 17-84 and WT Docket No. 17-79, FCC 18-111, paras. 140-68 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (Moratoria Declaratory Ruling). 32 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, para. 258. (“Accordingly, to the extent municipalities have interpreted the clock to begin running only after a determination of completeness, that interpretation is incorrect.”). 33 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96 § 6409(a)(2), 126 Stat. 156 (2012). 34 Id. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 of facilitating rapid deployment,”35 the Commission adopted rules to expedite the processing of eligible facilities requests, including documentation requirements and a 60-day period for states and localities to review such requests.36 The Commission further determined that a “deemed granted” remedy was necessary for cases in which the reviewing authority fails to issue a decision within the 60-day period in order to “ensur[e] rapid deployment of commercial and public safety wireless broadband services.”37 The Fourth Circuit, affirming that remedy, explained that “[f]unctionally, what has occurred here is that the FCC—pursuant to properly delegated Congressional authority—has preempted state regulation of wireless towers.”38 21. Consistent with these broad federal mandates, courts have recognized that the Commission has authority to interpret Sections 253 and 332 of the Act to further elucidate what types of state and local legal requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress established.39 For instance, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the 2009 Declaratory Ruling in City of Arlington. The court concluded that the Commission possessed the “authority to establish the 90– and 150–day time frames” and that its decision was not arbitrary and capricious.40 More generally, as the agency charged with administering the Communications Act, the Commission has the authority, responsibility, and expert judgement to issue interpretations of the statutory language and to adopt implementing regulations that clarify and specify the scope and effect of the Act. Such interpretations are particularly appropriate where the statutory language is ambiguous, or the subject matter is “technical, complex, and dynamic,” as it is in the Communications Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court.41 Here, the Commission has ample experience monitoring and regulating the telecommunications sector. It is well-positioned, in light of this experience and the record in this proceeding, to issue a clarifying interpretation of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) that accounts both for the changing needs of a dynamic wireless sector that is increasingly reliant on Small Wireless Facilities and for state and local oversight that does not materially inhibit wireless deployment. 22. The congressional and FCC decisions described above point to consistent federal action, particularly when faced with changes in technology, to ensure that our country’s approach to wireless infrastructure deployment promotes buildout of the facilities needed to provide Americans with next- generation services. Consistent with that long-standing approach, in the 2017 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether the FCC should again update its approach to infrastructure deployment to ensure that regulations are not operating as prohibitions in violation of Congress’s decisions and federal policy.42 In August 2018, the Commission concluded that state and local moratoria on telecommunications services and facilities deployment are barred by Section 253(a).43

35 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12872, para. 15. 36 Id. at 12922, 12956-57, paras. 135, 214-15. 37 Id. at 12961-62, paras. 226, 228. 38 Montgomery County, 811 F.3d at 129. 39 See, e.g., City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 253-54; County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 578; RT Commc’ns., Inc. v. FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000). 40 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 254, 260-61. 41 Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327, 328 (2002); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (recognizing “agency’s greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated”); see also, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 983-986 (2005) (Commission’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision overrides earlier court decisions interpreting the same provision). 42 See generally Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3332-39, paras. 4-22. 43 See generally Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, paras. 140-68. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

B. The Need for Commission Action 23. In response to the opportunities presented by offering new wireless services, and the problems facing providers that seek to deploy networks to do so, we find it necessary and appropriate to exercise our authority to interpret the Act and clarify the preemptive scope that Congress intended. The introduction of advanced wireless services has already revolutionized the way Americans communicate and transformed the U.S. economy. Indeed, the FCC’s most recent wireless competition report indicates that American demand for wireless services continues to grow exponentially. It has been reported that monthly data usage per smartphone subscriber rose to an average of 3.9 gigabytes per subscriber per month, an increase of approximately 39 percent from year-end 2015 to year-end 2016.44 As more Americans use more wireless services, demand for new technologies, coverage and capacity will necessarily increase, making it critical that the deployment of wireless infrastructure, particularly Small Wireless Facilities, not be stymied by unreasonable state and local requirements. 24. 5G wireless services, in particular, will transform the U.S. economy through increased use of high-bandwidth and low-latency applications and through the growth of the Internet of Things.45 While the existing wireless infrastructure in the U.S. was erected primarily using macro cells with relatively large antennas and towers, wireless networks increasingly have required the deployment of small cell systems to support increased usage and capacity. We expect this trend to increase with next- generation networks, as demand continues to grow, and providers deploy 5G service across the nation.46 It is precisely “[b]ecause providers will need to deploy large numbers of wireless cell sites to meet the country’s wireless broadband needs and implement next-generation technologies” that the Commission has acknowledged “an urgent need to remove any unnecessary barriers to such deployment, whether caused by Federal law, Commission processes, local and State reviews, or otherwise.”47 As explained below, the need to site so many more 5G-capable nodes leaves providers’ deployment plans and the underlying economics of those plans vulnerable to increased per site delays and costs. 25. Some states and local governments have acted to facilitate the deployment of 5G and other next-gen infrastructure, looking to bring greater connectivity to their communities through forward- looking policies. Leaders in these states are working hard to meet the needs of their communities and balance often competing interests. At the same time, outlier conduct persists. The record here suggests that the legal requirements in place in other state and local jurisdictions are materially impeding that deployment in various ways.48 Crown Castle, for example, describes “excessive and unreasonable” “fees

44 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Twentieth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8972, para. 20 (2017) (Twentieth Wireless Competition Report). 45 See Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3331, para. 1. 46 See, e.g., Letter from Brett Haan, Principal, Deloitte Consulting, U.S., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (“Significant investment in new network infrastructure is needed to deploy 5G networks at-scale in the United States. 5G’s speed and coverage capabilities rely on network densification, which requires the addition of towers and small cells to the network. . . . This requires carriers to add 3 to 10 times the number of existing sites to their networks. Most of this additional infrastructure will likely be built with small cells that use lampposts, utility phones, or other structures of similar size able to host smaller, less obtrusive radios required to build a densified network.” (citation omitted)); see also Deloitte LLP, 5G: The Chance to Lead for a Decade (2018) (Deloitte 5G Paper), available at https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt- 5gdeployment-imperative.pdf. 47 See Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3331, para. 2. 48 See, e.g., Letter from Henry Hultquist, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) (“Unfortunately, many municipalities are unable, unwilling, or do not make it a priority to act on applications within the shot clock period.” ); Letter from Keith Buell, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Aug. 13, 2018) (Sprint Aug. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Katherine R. Saunders, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed June 21, 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

to access the [rights-of-way] that are completely unrelated to their maintenance or management.” It also points to barriers to market entry “for independent network and telecommunications service providers,” including municipalities that “restric[t] access to the [right-of-way] only to providers of commercial mobile services” or that impose “onerous zoning requirements on small cell installations when other similar [right of way] utility installations are erected with simple building permits.”49 Crown Castle is not alone in describing local regulations that slow deployment. AT&T states that localities in Maryland, California, and Massachusetts have imposed fees so high that it has had to pause or decrease deployments.50 Likewise, AT&T states that a Texas city has refused to allow small cell placement on any structures in a right-of-way (ROW).51 T-Mobile states that the Town of Hempstead, New York requires service providers who seek to collocate or upgrade equipment on existing towers that have been properly constructed pursuant to Class II standards to upgrade and certify these facilities under Class III standards that apply to civil and national defense and military facilities.52 Verizon states that a Minnesota town has proposed barring construction of new poles in rights-of-way and that a Midwestern suburb where it has been trying to get approval for small cells since 2014 has no established procedures for small cell approvals.53 Verizon states that localities in New York and Washington have required special use permits involving multiple layers of approval to locate small cells in some or all zoning districts.54 While some localities dispute some of these characterizations, their submissions do not persuade us that there is no basis or need for the actions we take here. 26. Further, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that many local siting authorities are not complying with our existing Section 332 shot clock rules.55 WIA states that its members routinely face lengthy delays and specifically cite localities in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine as being

(Continued from previous page) 2018) (“[L]ocal permitting delays continue to stymie deployments.”); Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Crown Castle, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Aug. 10, 2018); Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Aug. 30, 2018) (CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 49 Crown Castle Comments at 7; see also Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Crown Castle International Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (“In Hillsborough, California, Crown Castle submitted applications covering 16 nodes, and was assessed $60,000 in application fees. Not only did Hillsborough go on to deny these applications, following that denial it also then sent Crown Castle an invoice for an additional $351,773 (attached as Exhibit A), most of which appears to be related to outside counsel fees—all for equipment that was not approved and has not yet been constructed.”). 50 Letter from Henry Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Aug. 6, 2018) (AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 51 AT&T Comments at 6-7. 52 T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7-9; see also CCA Reply Comments at 12; CTIA Reply Comments at 18; WIA Reply Comments at 22-23. 53 See Verizon Comments at 7. 54 See Verizon Comments at 35. 55 See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 8 (stating that “roughly 30% of all of its recently proposed sites (including small cells) involve cases where the locality failed to act in violation of the shot clocks.”). According to WIA, one of its members “reports that 70% of its applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities in the public ROWs during a two- year period exceeded the 90-day shot clock for installation of Small Wireless Facilities on an existing utility pole, and 47% exceeded the 150-day shot clock for the construction of new towers.” WIA Comments at 7. A New Jersey locality took almost five years to deny a Sprint application. See Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Paramus, N.J., 21 F. Supp. 3d 381, 383, 387 (D.N.J. 2014), aff’d, 606 Fed. Appx. 669 (3d Cir. 2015). Another locality took almost three years to deny a Crown Castle application to install a DAS system. See Crown Castle NG East, Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh, 2013 WL 3357169, *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 552 Fed. Appx. 47 (2d Cir. 2014). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

problematic.56 Similarly, AT&T identified an instance in which it took a locality in California 800 days to process an application.57 GCI provides an example in which it took an Alaska locality nine months to decide an application. 58 T-Mobile states that a community in Colorado and one in California have lengthy pre-application processes for all small cell installations that include notification to all nearby households, a public meeting, and the preparation of a report, none of which these jurisdictions view as triggering a shot clock.59 Similarly, Lightower provides examples of long delays in processing siting applications. 60 Finally, Crown Castle describes a case in which a “town took approximately two years and nearly twenty meetings, with constantly shifting demands, before it would even ‘deem complete’ Crown Castle’s application.”61 27. Our Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order are intended to address these issues and outlier conduct. Our conclusions are also informed by findings, reports, and recommendations from the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), including the Model Code for Municipalities, the Removal of State and Local Regulatory Barriers Working Group report, and the Rates and Fees Ad Hoc Working Group report, which the Commission created in 2017 to identify barriers to deployment of broadband infrastructure, many of which are addressed here.62 We also considered input from numerous state and local officials about their concerns, and how they have approached wireless deployment, much of which we took into account here. Our action is also consistent with congressional efforts to hasten deployment, including bi-partisan legislation pending in Congress like the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act and SPEED Act. The STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act proposes to streamline wireless infrastructure deployments by requiring siting agencies to act on deployment requests within specified time frames and by limiting the imposition of onerous

56 WIA Comments at 8. WIA states that one of its “member reports that the wireless siting approval process exceeds 90 days in more than 33% of jurisdictions it surveyed and exceeds 150 days in 25% of surveyed jurisdictions.” WIA Comments at 8. In some cases, WIA members have experienced delays ranging from one to three years in multiple jurisdictions—significantly longer than the 90- and 150-day time frames that the Commission established in 2009. 57 See WIA Comments at 9 (citing and discussing AT&T’s Comments in the 2016 Streamlining Public Notice, WT Docket No. 16-421). 58 GCI Comments at 5-6. 59 T-Mobile Comments at 21. 60 Lightower submits that average processing timeframes have increased from 300 days in 2016 to approximately 570 days in 2017, much longer than the Commission’s shot clocks. Lightower states that “forty-six separate jurisdictions in the last two years had taken longer than 150 days to consider applications, with twelve of those jurisdictions—representing 101 small wireless facilities—taking more than a year.” Lightower Comments at 5-6. See also WIA Comments at 9 (citing and discussing Lightower’s Comments in the 2016 Streamlining Public Notice, WT Docket No. 16-421). 61 WIA Comments at 8 (citing and discussing Crown Castle’s Comments in 2016 Streamlining Public Notice, WT Docket No. 16-421). 62 BDAC Report of the Removal of State and Local Regulatory Barriers Working Group, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-regulatorybarriers-01232018.pdf (approved by the BDAC on January 23, 2018) (BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report); Draft Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees to the BDAC, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-07-2627-2018-rates-fees-wg-report-07242018.pdf (July 26, 2018) (Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report); BDAC Model Municipal Code (Harmonized), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdac-07-2627-2018-harmonization-wg-model-code-muni.pdf (approved July 26, 2018) (BDAC Model Municipal Code). The Draft Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees to the BDAC was presented to the BDAC on July 26, 2018 but has not been voted by the BDAC as of the adoption of this Declaratory Ruling. Certain members of the Removal of State and Local Barriers Working Group also submitted a minority report disagreeing with certain findings in the BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report. See Minority Report Submitted by McAllen, TX, San Jose, CA, and New York, NY, GN Docket No. 17-83 (Jan 23, 2018); Letter from Kevin Pagan, City Attorney of McAllen to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed September 14, 2018). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

conditions and fees.63 The SPEED Act would similarly streamline federal permitting processes.64 In the same vein, the Model Code for Municipalities adopts streamlined infrastructure siting requirements while other BDAC reports and recommendations emphasize the negative impact of high fees on infrastructure deployments.65 28. As do members of both parties of Congress and experts on the BDAC, we recognize the urgent need to streamline regulatory requirements to accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure for current needs and for the next generation of wireless service in 5G.66 State government officials also have urged us to act to expedite the deployment of 5G technology, in particular, by streamlining overly burdensome regulatory processes to ensure that 5G technology will expand beyond just urban centers. These officials have expressed their belief that reducing high regulatory costs and delays in urban areas would leave more money and encourage development in rural areas.67 “[G]etting [5G] infrastructure out in a timely manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources. The solution is to streamline relevant policies—allowing more modern rules for modern infrastructure.”68 State officials have acknowledged that current regulations are “outdated” and “could hinder the timely arrival of 5G throughout the country,” and urged the FCC “to push for more reforms that will streamline infrastructure rules from coast to coast.”69 Although many states and localities support our efforts, we acknowledge that there are others who advocated for different approaches, arguing, among other points,

63 See, e.g., STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S.3157, 115th Congress (2017-2018). 64 See, e.g., Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure Act of 2017 (SPEED Act), S. 1988, 115th Cong. (2017). 65 See BDAC Model Municipal Code; Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report; BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report. 66 See, e.g., Letter from Patricia Paoletta, Counsel to Deloitte Consulting LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 20, 2018) (“Deloitte noted that, as with many technology standard evolutions, the value of being a first-mover in 5G will be significant. Being first to LTE afforded the United States macroeconomic benefits, as it became a test bed for innovative mobile, social, and streaming applications. Being first to 5G can have even greater and more sustained benefits to our national economy given the network effects associated with adding billions of devices to the 5G network, enabling machine-to-machine interactions that generates data for further utilization by vertical industries”). 67 Letter from Montana State Senator Duane Ankney to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 31, 2018) (Duane Ankney July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Fred A. Lamphere, Butte County Sheriff, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 11, 2018) (Fred A. Lamphere Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Todd Nash, Susan Roberts, Paul Catstilleja, Wallowa County Board of Commissioners, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Aug. 20, 2018); Letter from Lonnie Gilbert, First Responder, National Black Growers Council Member, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 12, 2018); Letter from Jason R. Saine, North Caroline House of Representatives, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1(filed Sept. 14, 2018) (Jason R. Saine Sept. 14, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (minimal regulatory standard across the United States is critical to ensure that the United States wins the race to the 5G economy). 68 Letter from LaWana Mayfield, City Council Member, Charlotte, NC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 31, 2018) (LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); see also Letter from South Carolina State Representative Terry Alexander to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed August 7, 2018) (“[P]olicymakers at all levels of government must streamline complex siting stipulations that will otherwise slow down 5G buildout for small cells in particular.”); Letter from Sal Pace, Pueblo County Commissioner, District 3, CO, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 30, 2018) (Sal Pace July 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (“[T]he FCC should ensure that localities are fully compensated for their costs . . . Such fees should be reasonable and non-discriminatory, and should ensure that localities are made whole. Lastly, the FCC should set reasonable and enforceable deadlines for localities to act on wireless permit applications. . . . The distinction between siting large macro-towers and small cells should be reflected in any rulemaking.”) 69 Letter from Dr. Carolyn A. Prince, Chairwoman, Marlboro County Council, SC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79, at 1 (filed July 31, 2018) (Dr. Carolyn Prince July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 that the FCC lacks authority to take certain actions.70 We have carefully considered these views, but nevertheless find our actions here necessary and fully supported. 29. Accordingly, in this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, we act to reduce regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireless infrastructure and to ensure that our nation remains the leader in advanced wireless services and wireless technology. III. DECLARATORY RULING 30. In this Declaratory Ruling, we note that a number of appellate courts have articulated different and often conflicting views regarding the scope and nature of the limits Congress imposed on state and local governments through Sections 253 and 332. In light of these diverging views, Congress’s vision for a consistent, national policy framework, and the need to ensure that our approach continues to make sense in light of the relatively new trend towards the large-scale deployment of Small Wireless Facilities, we take this opportunity to clarify and update the FCC’s reading of the limits Congress imposed. We do so in three main respects. 31. First, in Part III.A, we express our agreement with the views already stated by the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits that the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in 1997 by the Clinton-era FCC’s California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as a prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332. 32. Second, in Part III.B, we note, as numerous courts have recognized, that state and local fees and other charges associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can effectively prohibit the provision of service. At the same time, courts have articulated various approaches to determining the types of fees that run afoul of Congress’s limits in Sections 253 and 332. We thus clarify the particular standard that governs the fees and charges that violate Sections 253 and 332 when it comes to the Small Wireless Facilities at issue in this decision. Namely, fees are only permitted to the extent that they represent a reasonable approximation of the local government’s objectively reasonable costs, and are non- discriminatory.71 In this section, we also identify specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities that presumptively comply with this standard. We do so to help avoid unnecessary litigation, while recognizing that it is the standard itself, not the particular, presumptive fee levels we articulate, that ultimately will govern whether a particular fee is allowed under Sections 253 and 332. So fees above

70 See, e.g., City of Manhattan, KS Sept. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Damon Connolly Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2. 71 Fees charged by states or localities in connection with Small Wireless Facilities would be “compensation” for purposes of Section 253(c). This Declaratory Ruling interprets Section 253 and 332(c)(7) in the context of three categories of fees, one of which applies to all deployments of Small Wireless Facilities while the other two are specific to Small Wireless Facilities deployments inside the ROW. (1) “Event” or “one-time” fees are charges that providers pay on a non-recurring basis in connection with a one-time event, or series of events occurring within a finite period. The one-time fees addressed in this Declaratory Ruling are not specific to the ROW. For example, a provider may be required to pay fees during the application process to cover the costs related to processing an application building or construction permits, street closures, or a permitting fee, whether or not the deployment is in the ROW. (2) Recurring charges for a Small Wireless Facility’s use of or attachment to property inside the ROW owned or controlled by a state or local government, such as a light pole or traffic light, is the second category of fees addressed here, and is typically paid on a per structure/per year basis. (3) Finally, ROW access fees are recurring charges that are assessed, in some instances, to compensate a state or locality for a Small Wireless Facility’s access to the ROW, which includes the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, sidewalk, alley, utility easement, or similar property (including when such property is government-owned). A ROW access fee may be charged even if the Small Wireless Facility is not using government owned property within the ROW. AT&T Comments at 18 (describing three categories of fees); Letter from Tamara Preiss, Vice President, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 11 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) (Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (characterizing fees as recurring or non-recurring); see also Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report at p. 15-16. Unless otherwise specified, a reference to “fee” or “fees” herein refers to any one of, or any combination of, these three categories of charges. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

those levels would be permissible under Sections 253 and 332 to the extent a locality’s actual, reasonable costs (as measured by the standard above) are higher. 33. Finally, in Part III.C, we focus on a subset of other, non-fee provisions of state and local law that could also operate as prohibitions on service. We do so in particular by addressing state and local consideration of aesthetic concerns in the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. We note that the Small Wireless Facilities that are the subject of this Declaratory Ruling remain subject to the Commission’s rules governing Radio Frequency (RF) emissions exposure.72 A. Overview of the Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) Framework Relevant to Small Wireless Facilities Deployment 34. In Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act, Congress determined that state or local requirements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of service are unlawful and thus preempted.73 Section 253(a) addresses “any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,” while Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) addresses “personal wireless services.”74 Although the provisions contain identical “effect of prohibiting” language, the Commission and different courts over the years have each employed inconsistent approaches to deciding what it means for a state or local legal requirement to have the “effect of prohibiting” services under these two sections of the Act. This has caused confusion among both providers and local governments about what legal requirements are permitted under Sections 253 and 332(c)(7). For example, despite Commission decisions to the contrary construing such language under Section 253, some courts have held that a denial of a wireless siting application will “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” the provision of a personal wireless service under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) only if the provider can establish that it has a significant gap in service coverage in the

72 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307, 1.1310. We disagree with commenters who oppose the Declaratory Ruling on the basis of concerns regarding RF emissions. See, e.g., Comments from Judy Aizuss, Comments from Jeffrey Arndt, Comments from Jeanice Barcelo, Comments from Kristin Beatty, Comments from James M. Benster, Comments from Terrie Burns, Comments from EMF Safety Network, Comments from Kate Reese Hurd, Comments from Marilynne Martin, Comments from Lisa Mayock, Comments from Kristen Moriarty Termunde, Comments from Sage Associates, Comments from Elizabeth Shapiro, Comments from Paul Silver, Comments from Natalie Ventrice. The Commission has authority to adopt and enforce RF exposure limits, and nothing in this Declaratory Ruling changes the applicability of the Commission’s existing RF emissions exposure rules. See, e.g., Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 (directing Commission to “prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” upon completing action in then-pending rulemaking proceeding that included proposals for, inter alia, maximum exposure limits); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (recognizing legitimacy of FCC’s existing regulations on environmental effects of RF emissions of personal wireless service facilities, by proscribing state and local regulation of such facilities on the basis of such effects, to the extent such facilities comply with Commission regulations concerning such RF emissions); 47 U.S.C. § 151 (creating the FCC “[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service, . . . for the purpose of [inter alia] promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications”). See also H.R. Rep. No. 204(I), 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 94 (1995), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61 (1996) (in legislative history of Section 704 of 1996 Telecommunications Act, identifying “adequate safeguards of the public health and safety” as part of a framework of uniform, nationwide RF regulations); ; Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 3530-31, para. 103, n.176 (2013). 73 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 74 Id. The actions in this proceeding update the FCC’s approach to Sections 253 and 332 by addressing effective prohibitions that apply to the deployment of services covered by those provisions. Our interpretations in this proceeding do not provide any basis for increasing the regulation of services deployed consistent with Section 621 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

area and a lack of feasible alternative locations for siting facilities.75 Other courts have held that evidence of an already-occurring or complete inability to offer a telecommunications service is required to demonstrate an effective prohibition under Section 253(a).76 Conversely, still other courts like the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits have endorsed prior Commission interpretations of what constitutes an effective prohibition under Section 253(a) and recognized that, under that analytical framework, a legal requirement can constitute an effective prohibition of services even if it is not an insurmountable barrier.77 35. In this Declaratory Ruling, we first reaffirm, as our definitive interpretation of the effective prohibition standard, the test we set forth in California Payphone, namely, that a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”78 We then explain how this “material inhibition” standard applies in the context of state and local fees and aesthetic requirements. In doing so, we confirm the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits’ understanding that under this analytical framework, a legal requirement can “materially inhibit” the provision of services even if it is not an insurmountable barrier.79 We also resolve the conflicting court interpretations of the

75 Courts vary widely regarding the type of showing needed to satisfy the second part of that standard. The First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits have imposed a “heavy burden” of proof on applicants to establish a lack of alternative feasible sites, requiring them to show “not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts to find another solution are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try.” Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2014); accord New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Fairfax County, 674 F.3d 270, 277 (4th Cir. 2012); T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County, 672 F.3d 259, 266-68 (4th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Helcher v. Dearborn County, 595 F.3d 710, 723 (7th Cir. 2010) (Helcher). The Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held that an applicant must show only that its proposed facilities are the “least intrusive means” for filling a coverage gap in light of the aesthetic or other values that the local authority seeks to serve. Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999) (Willoth); APT Pittsburgh Ltd. P’ship v. Penn Township, 196 F.3d 469, 480 (3d Cir. 1999) (APT); American Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2014); T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995-99 (9th Cir. 2009) (City of Anacortes). 76 See, e.g., County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 579-80; Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d 528, 533-34 (8th Cir. 2007) (City of St. Louis). 77 See Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2006) (Municipality of Guayanilla); TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (City of White Plains); RT Communications v. FCC, 201 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[Section] 253(a) forbids any statute which prohibits or has ‘the effect of prohibiting’ entry. Nowhere does the statute require that a bar to entry be insurmountable before the FCC must preempt it.”) (RT Communications) (affirming Silver Star Tel. Co. Petition for Preemption and Declaratory Ruling, 12 FCC Rcd 15639 (1997)). 78 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31. A number of circuit courts have cited California Payphone as the leading authority regarding the standard to be applied under Section 253(a). See, e.g., County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 578; City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533; Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18; Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1270 (10th Cir. 2004) (City of Santa Fe); City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76. Crown Castle argues that the Eighth and Ninth Circuit cited the FCC’s California Payphone decision,but read the standard in an overly narrow fashion. See, e.g., Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice Pres. and Gen. Counsel, Crown Castle, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 12 (filed June 7, 2018) (Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); see also Smart Communities Comments at 60-61 (describing circuit split). Some commenters cite selected dictionary definitions or otherwise argue for a narrow definition of “prohibit.” See, e.g., Smart Communities Reply at 53. But because they do not go on to dispute the validity of the California Payphone standard that has been employed not only by the Commission but also many courts, those arguments do not persuade us to depart from the California Payphone standard here. 79 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76; Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18; see also, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 12. Because the clarifications in this order should reduce uncertainty regarding the application of these provisions for state and local governments as well as stakeholders, we are not persuaded by some commenters’ arguments that an expedited complaint process is required. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 28; CTIA Reply at 21. We do not address, at this time, recently-filed petitions for reconsideration of our August 2018 Moratoria Declaratory Ruling. See, e.g., Smart Communities Petition for Reconsideration, WC 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

‘effective prohibition’ language so that continuing confusion on the meaning of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) does not materially inhibit the critical deployments of Small Wireless Facilities and our nation’s drive to deploy 5G.80 36. As an initial matter, we note that our Declaratory Ruling applies with equal measure to the effective prohibition standard that appears in both Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7).81 This ruling is consistent with the basic canon of statutory interpretation that identical words appearing in neighboring provisions of the same statute generally should be interpreted to have the same meaning.82 Moreover, both of these provisions apply to wireless telecommunications services83 as well as to commingled services and facilities.84 (Continued from previous page) Docket No. 17-84 & WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018); New York City Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 17-84 & WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018). Nor do we address requests for clarification and/or action on other issues raised in the record beyond those expressly discussed in this order. These other issues include arguments regarding other statutory interpretations that we do not address here. See, e.g., CTIA Reply at 23 (raising broader questions about the precise interplay of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 16-17 (raising broader questions about the scope of “legal requirements” under Section 253(a)). Consequently, this order should not be read as impliedly taking a position on those issues. 80 See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 11-12 (arguing that “[d]espite the Commission’s efforts to define the boundaries of federal preemption under Section 253, courts have issued a number of conflicting decisions that have only served to confuse the preemption analysis sunder section 253” and that “the Commission should clarify that the California Payphone standard as interpreted by the First and Second Circuits is the appropriate standard going forward”); see also BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report at p. 9 (“The Commission should provide clarity on what actually constitutes an “excessive” fee for right-of-way access and use. The FCC should provide guidance on what constitutes a fee that is excessive and/or duplicative, and that therefore is not “fair and reasonable.” The Commission should specifically clarify that “fair and reasonable” compensation for right-of way access and use implies some relation to the burden of new equipment placed in the ROW or on the local asset, or some other objective standard.”). Because our decision provides clarity by addressing conflicting court decisions and reaffirming that the “materially inhibits” standard articulated in the Commission’s California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as an effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332, we reject arguments that our action will increase conflicts and lead to more litigation. See e.g., Letter from Michael Dylan Brennan, Mayor, City of University Heights, Ohio, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (stating that “…this framing and definition of effective prohibition opens local governments to the likelihood of more, not less, conflict and litigation over requirements for aesthetics, spacing, and undergrounding”). 81 See infra Part III.A, B. 82 See County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 579 (“We see nothing suggesting that Congress intended a different meaning of the text ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting’ in the two statutory provisions, enacted at the same time, in the same statute. * * * * * As we now hold, the legal standard is the same under either [Section 253 or 332(c)(7)].”); see also, e.g., Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1946 (citing Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484 (1990) (reading same term used in different parts of the same Act to have the same meaning); Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools, 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973) (per curiam) (“[S]imilarity of language . . . is . . . a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu”); Verizon Comments at 9-10; AT&T Reply at 3-4; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 15. 83 Common carrier wireless services meet the definition of “telecommunications services,” and thus are within the scope of Section 253(a) of the Act. See, e.g., Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para 142 n.523; see also, e.g., League of Minnesota Cities Comments at 11; Verizon Reply at 9-10. While some commenters cite certain distinguishing factual characteristics between wireline and wireless services, the record does not reveal why those distinctions would be material to whether wireless telecommunications services are covered by Section 253 in the first instance. See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 13; Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 5, Exh. A at 45-46. To the contrary, Section 253(e) expressly preserves “application of section 332(c)(3) of this title to commercial mobile service providers” notwithstanding Section 253—a provision that would be meaningless if wireless telecommunications services already fell outside the scope of Section 253. 47 U.S.C. § 253(e). For this same reason, we also reject claims that the existence of certain protections for personal wireless services in Section 332(c)(7), or the phrase “nothing in this chapter” in Section 332(c)(7)(A), demonstrate that states’ or localities’ 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

37. As explained in California Payphone and reaffirmed here, a state or local legal requirement will have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services if it materially inhibits the provision of such services. We clarify that an effective prohibition occurs where a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service.85 This test is met not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service

(Continued from previous page) regulations affecting wireless telecommunications services must fall outside the scope of Section 253. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at iii, 45-46; Smart Communities Comments at 56. Even if, as some parties argue, the phrase “nothing in this chapter” could be construed as preserving state or local decisions on the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities from preemption by other sections of the Communications Act, Section 332(c)(7)(A) goes on to make clear that such state or local decisions are not immune from preemption if they violate any of the standards set forth in Section 332(c)(7)(B)--including Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)’s ban of requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” the provision of service, which is identical to the preemption provision in Section 253(a). Thus, states and localities may charge fees and dispose of applications relating to the matters subject to Section 332(c)(7) in any manner they deem appropriate, so long as that conduct does not amount to a prohibition or effective prohibition, as interpreted in this Declaratory Ruling or otherwise run afoul of federal or state law; but because Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 253(a) use identical ”effective prohibition” language, the standard for what is saved and what is preempted is the same under both provisions. 84 See infra para. 40 (discussing use of small cells to close coverage gaps, including voice gaps); see also, e.g., Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para 145 n.531; Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311, 425, para. 190 (2018); Letter from Andre J. Lachance, Associate General Counsel, Verizon to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 3 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (confirming that “telecommunications services can be provided over small cells and Verizon has deployed Small Wireless Facilities in its network that provide telecommunications services.”); Letter from David M. Crawford, Senior Corporate Counsel, Fed. Reg. Affairs, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79 at 1 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (stating that “small wireless facilities are a critical component of T-Mobile’s network deployment plans to support both the 5G evolution of wireless services, as well as more traditional services such as mobile broadband and even voice calls. T-Mobile, for example, uses small wireless facilities to densify our network to provide better coverage and greater capacity, and to provide traditional services such as voice calls in areas where our macro site coverage is insufficient to meet demand.”); Letter from Henry G. Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed Sept. 20, 2018) (“AT&T has operated and continues to operate commercial mobile radio services as well as information services from small wireless facilities...”); see also, e.g., Coastal Communications Service v. City of New York, 658 F. Supp. 2d 425, 441-42 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that a restriction on advertising on newly-installed payphones was subject to Section 253(a) where the advertising was a material factor in the provider’s ability to provide the payphone service itself). The fact that facilities are sometimes deployed by third parties not themselves providing covered services also does not place such deployment beyond the purview of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) insofar as the facilities are used by wireless service providers on a wholesale basis to provide covered services (among other things). See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 26. Given our conclusion that neither commingling of services nor the identity of the entity engaged in the deployment activity changes the applicability of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) where the facilities are being used for the provisioning of services within the scope of the relevant statutory provisions, we reject claims to the contrary. See, e.g., Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance et al. Comments at 15-16; City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 12; id., Exh. C at 13-15. Because local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate these interstate services, there is no basis for local jurisdictions to conduct proceedings on the types of personal wireless services offered over particular wireless service facilities or the licensee’s service area, which are matters within the Commission’s licensing authority. Furthermore, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to require that providers offer certain types or levels of service, or to dictate the design of a provider’s network. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A); see also Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2000). 85 By “covered service” we mean a telecommunications service or a personal wireless service for purposes of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7), respectively. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

capabilities.86 Under the California Payphone standard, a state or local legal requirement could materially inhibit service in numerous ways—not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide an existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services. Thus, an effective prohibition includes materially inhibiting additional services or improving existing services.87 38. Our reading of Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflects and supports a marketplace in which services can be offered in a multitude of ways with varied capabilities and performance characteristics consistent with the policy goals in the 1996 Act and the Communications Act. To limit Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to protecting only against coverage gaps or the like would be to ignore Congress’s contemporaneously-expressed goals of “promot[ing] competition[,] . . . secur[ing] . . . higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage[ing] the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”88 In addition, as the Commission recently explained, the implementation of the Act “must factor in the fundamental objectives of the Act, including the deployment of a ‘rapid, efficient . . . wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges’ and ‘the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products and services for the benefit of the public . . . without administrative or judicial delays[, and] efficient and

86 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 54-55; Free State Foundation Comments at 12; T-Mobile Comments at 43- 45; CTIA Reply at 14; WIA Reply at 26; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 13-14; Letter from Kara Romagnino Graves, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79, at 8-9 (filed June 27, 2018) (CTIA June 27, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). As T-Mobile explains, for example, a provider might need to improve “signal strength or system capacity to allow it to provide reliable service to consumers in residential and commercial buildings.” T-Mobile Comments at 43; see also, e.g., Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket Nos. 13-238, et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14253, para. 38 (2013) (observing that “DAS and small cell facilities[ ] are critical to satisfying demand for ubiquitous mobile voice and broadband services”). The growing prevalence of smart phones has only accelerated the demand for wireless providers to take steps to improve their service offerings. See, e.g., Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9011-13, paras. 62-65. 87 Our conclusion finds further support in our broad understanding of the statutory term “service,” which, as we explained in our recent Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, means “any covered service a provider wishes to provide, incorporating the abilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including to provide existing services more robustly, or at a higher level of quality—such as through filling a coverage gap, densification, or otherwise improving service capabilities.” Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para. 162 n.594; see also Public Utility Comm’n of Texas Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Preemption of Certain Provisions of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3460, 3496, para. 74 (1997) (Texas PUC Order) (interpreting the scope of ‘telecommunications services’ covered by Section 253(a) and clarifying that it would be an unlawful prohibition for a state or locality to specify “the means or facilities” through which a service provider must offer service); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10-11 (discussing this precedent). We find this interpretation of “service” warranted not only under Section 253(a), but Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)’s reference to “services” as well. 88 Preamble to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law. No. 104-104, § 202, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). Consequently, we reject arguments suggesting that the provision of some level of wireless service in the past necessarily demonstrates that there is no effective prohibition of service under the state or local legal requirements that applied during those periods or that an effective prohibition only is present if a provider can provide no covered service whatsoever. See, e.g., City and County of San Francisco Comments at 25-26; Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 31-33. Nor, in light of these goals, do we find it reasonable to interpret the protections of these provisions as doing nothing more than guarding against a monopoly as some suggest. See, e.g., Smart Communities Comments, WC Docket No. 17-84, at 8-9 (filed June 15, 2017) cited in Smart Communities Comments at 57 n.141. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

intensive use of the .’”89 These provisions demonstrate that our interpretation of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is in accordance with the broader goals of the various statutes that the Commission is entrusted to administer. 39. California Payphone further concluded that providers must be allowed to compete in a “fair and balanced regulatory environment.”90 As reflected in decisions such as the Commission’s Texas PUC Order, a state or local legal requirement can function as an effective prohibition either because of the resulting “financial burden” in an absolute sense, or, independently, because of a resulting competitive disparity.91 We clarify that “[a] regulatory structure that gives an advantage to particular services or facilities has a prohibitory effect, even if there are no express barriers to entry in the state or local code; the greater the discriminatory effect, the more certain it is that entities providing service using the disfavored facilities will experience prohibition.”92 This conclusion is consistent with both Commission and judicial precedent recognizing the prohibitory effect that results from a competitor being treated materially differently than similarly-situated providers.93 We provide our authoritative interpretation below of the circumstances in which a “financial burden,” as described in the Texas PUC Order, constitutes an effective prohibition in the context of certain state and local fees. 40. As we explained above, we reject alternative readings of the effective prohibition language that have been adopted by some courts and used to defend local requirements that have the effect of prohibiting densification of networks. Decisions that have applied solely a “coverage gap”- based approach under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflect both an unduly narrow reading of the statute and an outdated view of the marketplace.94 Those cases, including some that formed the foundation for

89 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Second Report and Order, FCC 18-30, para. 62 (rel. Mar. 30, 2018) (Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O) (quoting 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 309(j)(3)(A), (D)). 90 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31. 91 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81; see also, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte at 10-11, 13. 92 Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 13. 93 See, e.g., Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities, Declaratory Ruling, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15173, paras. 12-13 (2000) (Western Wireless Order); Pittencrieff Communications, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Preemption of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 1735, 1751-52, para. 32 (1997) (Pittencrieff), aff’d, Cellular Telecomm. Indus. Ass‘n v. FCC, 168 F.3d 1332 (5th Cir. 1999); City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 80. 94 Smart Communities seeks clarification of whether this Declaratory Ruling is meant to say that the “coverage gap” standard followed by a number of courts should include consideration of capacity as well as coverage issues. Letter from Gerard Lavery Lederer, Counsel, Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Att. at 17 (Sept. 19, 2018) (Smart Communities Sept. 19 Ex Parte Letter). We are not holding that prior “coverage gap” analyses are consistent with the standards we articulate here as long as they also take into account “capacity gaps”; rather, we are articulating here the effective prohibition standard that should apply while, at the same time, noting one way in which prior approaches erred by requiring coverage gaps. Accordingly, we reject both the version of the “coverage gap” test followed by the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits (requiring applicants to show “not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts to find another solution are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try”) and the version endorsed by the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits (requiring applicants to show that the proposed facilities are the “least intrusive means” for filling a coverage gap) See supra n. 75. We also note that some courts have expressed concern about alternative readings of the statute that would lead to extreme outcomes—either always requiring a grant under some interpretations, or never preventing a denial under other interpretations. See, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 639-41; APT, 196 F.3d at 478-79; Town of Amherst v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1999); AT&T Wireless PCS v. City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 428 (4th Cir. 1998) (City Council of Virginia Beach); see also, e.g., Greenling Comments at 2; City and County of San Francisco Reply 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

“coverage gap”-based analytical approaches, appear to view wireless service as if it were a single, monolithic offering provided only via traditional wireless towers. 95 By contrast, the current wireless marketplace is characterized by a wide variety of offerings with differing service characteristics and deployment strategies. 96 As Crown Castle explains, coverage gap-based approaches are “simply

(Continued from previous page) at 16. Our interpretation avoids those concerns while better reflecting the text and policy goals of the Communications Act and 1996 Act than coverage gap-based approaches ultimately adopted by those courts. Our approach ensures meaningful constraints on state and local conduct that otherwise would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. At the same time, our standard does not preclude all state and local denials of requests for the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities, as explained below. See infra III.B, C. 95 See, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641-44; 360 Degrees Commc’ns Co. v.Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79, 86-88 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (Albemarle County); see also, e.g., ExteNet Comments at 29; T-Mobile Comments at 42; Verizon Comments at 18; WIA Comments at 38-40. Even some cases that implicitly recognize the limitations of a gap-based test fail to account for those limitations in practice when applying Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). See, e.g., Second Generation Properties v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 633 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing scenarios where a carrier has coverage but insufficient capacity to adequately handle the volume of calls or where new technology emerges and a carrier would like to use it in areas that already have coverage using prior-generation technology). Courts that have sought to identify limited set of characteristics of personal wireless services covered by the Act essentially allow actual or effective prohibition of many personal wireless services that providers wish to offer with additional or more advanced characteristics. See, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641-43 (drawing upon certain statutory definitions); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho- Kus, 197 F.3d 64, 70 (3d Cir. 1999) (Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus) (concluding that it should be up to state or local authorities to assess and weigh the benefits of differing service qualities); Albemarle County, 211 F.3d at 87 (citing 47 CFR §§ 22.99, 22.911(b) as noting the possibility of some ‘dead spots’); cf. USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines, 465 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006) (describing as a “dubious proposition” the argument that a denial of a request to construct a tower resulting in “less than optimal” service quality could be an effective prohibition). An outcome that allows the actual or effective prohibition of some covered services is contrary to the Act. Section 253(a) applies to any state or local legal requirement that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing “any” interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). Similarly, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) categorically precludes state or local regulation of the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless “services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). We find the most natural interpretation of these sections is that any service that meets the definition of “telecommunications service” or “personal wireless service” is encompassed by the language of each provision, rather than only some subset of such services or service generally. The notion that such state or local regulation permissibly could prohibit some personal wireless services, so long as others are available, is at odds with that interpretation. In addition, as we explain above, a contrary approach would fail to advance important statutory goals as well as the interpretation we adopt. Further, the approach reflected in these court decisions could involve state or local authorities “inquir[ing] into and regulat[ing] the services offered—an inquiry for which they are ill-qualified to pursue and which could only delay infrastructure deployment.” Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 14. Instead, our effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public. 96 See generally, e.g., Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8968; see also, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 42-43; AT&T Reply at 4-5; CTIA Reply at 13-14; WIA Reply at 23-24; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 15. We do not suggest that viewing wireless service as if it were a single, monolithic offering provided only via traditional wireless towers would have reflected an accurate understanding of the marketplace in the past, even if it might have been somewhat more understandable that courts held such a simplified view at that time. Rather, the current marketplace conditions highlight even more starkly the shortcomings of coverage gap- based approaches, which do not account for other characteristics and deployment strategies. See, e.g., Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8974-75, para. 12 (observing that “[p]roviders of mobile wireless services typically offer an array of mobile voice and data services,” including “interconnected mobile voice services”); id. at 8997-97, paras. 42-43 (discussing various types of wireless infrastructure deployment to, among 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

incompatible with a world where the vast majority of new wireless builds are going to be designed to add network capacity and take advantage of new technologies, rather than plug gaps in network coverage.”97 Moreover, a critical feature of these new wireless builds is to accommodate increased in-building use of wireless services, necessitating deployment of small cells in order to ensure quality service to wireless callers within such buildings.98 41. Likewise, we reject the suggestion of some courts like the Eighth and Ninth Circuits that evidence of an existing or complete inability to offer a telecommunications service is required under 253(a).99 Such an approach is contrary to the material inhibition standard of California Payphone and the correct recognition by courts “that a prohibition does not have to be complete or ‘insurmountable’” to constitute an effective prohibition.100 Commission precedent beginning with California Payphone itself makes clear that an insurmountable barrier is not required to find an effective prohibition under Section 253(a).101 The “effectively prohibit” language must have some meaning independent of the “prohibit”

(Continued from previous page) other things, “improve spectrum efficiency for 4G and future 5G services,” “to fill local coverage gaps, to densify networks and to increase local capacity”). 97 Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 15; see also id. at 13 (“Densification of networks will be key for augmenting the capacity of existing networks and laying the groundwork for the deployment of 5G.”); id. at 15-16 (“When trying to maximize spectrum re-use and boost capacity, moving facilities by just a few hundred feet can mean the difference between excellent service and poor service. The FCC’s rules, therefore, must account for the effect siting decisions would have on every level of service, including increasing capacity and adding new spectrum bands. Practices and decisions that prevent carriers from doing either materially prohibit the provision of telecommunications service and thus should be considered impermissible under Section 332.”). Contrary approaches appear to occur in part when courts’ policy balancing places more importance on broadly preserving state and local authority than is justified. See, e.g., APT, 196 F.3d at 479; Albemarle County, 211 F.3d at 86; City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d at 429; National Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., League of Arizona Cities et al. Joint Comments at 45; Smart Communities Reply at 33. As explained above, our interpretation that “telecommunications services” in Section 253(a) and “personal wireless services” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) are focused on the covered services that providers seek to provide —including the relevant service characteristics they seek to incorporate—not only is consistent with the text of those provisions but better reflects the broader policy goals of the Communications Act and the 1996 Act. 98 See WIA Comments at 39; T-Mobile Comments at 43-44. 99 See, e.g., County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 577, 579-80; City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533-34; see also, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 39-41. Although the Ninth Circuit in County of San Diego found that “the unambiguous text of §253(a)” precluded a prior Ninth Circuit approach that found an effective prohibition based on broad governmental discretion and the “mere possibility of prohibition,” that holding is not implicated by our interpretations here. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 578; cf. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 532. Consequently, those decisions do not preclude the Commission’s interpretations here, see, e.g., Verizon Reply at 7, and we reject claims to the contrary. See, e.g., Smart Communities Comments at 60. 100 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76 (citing RT Commc’ns, 201 F.3d at 1268); see also, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18 (quoting City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76 and citing City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1269); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 12; Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach at 5. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit’s City of St. Louis decision acknowledges that under Section 253 “[t]he plaintiff need not show a complete or insurmountable prohibition,” even while other aspects of that decision suggest that an insurmountable barrier effectively would be required. City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 533 (citing City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76). 101 In California Payphone, the Commission concluded that the ordinance at issue “does not ‘prohibit’ the ability of any payphone service provider to provide payphone service in the Central Business District within the meaning of section 253(a),” but went on to evaluate the possibility of an effective prohibition by considering “whether the Ordinance materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14205, 14206, paras. 28, 31. In the Texas PUC Order, the Commission found that state law build-out requirements would require “substantial financial investment” and a “comparatively high cost per loop sold” in particular areas, interfering with the 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

language, and we find that the interpretation of the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits reflects that principle, while being more consistent with the California Payphone standard than the approach of the Eighth and Ninth Circuits.102 The reasonableness of our interpretation that ‘effective prohibition’ does not require a showing of an insurmountable barrier to entry is demonstrated not only by a number of circuit courts’ acceptance of that view, but in the Supreme Court’s own characterization of Section 253(a) as “prohibit[ing] state and local regulation that impedes the provision of ‘telecommunications service.’”103 42. The Eighth and Ninth Circuits’ suggestion that a provider must show an insurmountable barrier to entry in the jurisdiction imposing the relevant regulation is at odds with relevant statutory purposes and goals, as well. Section 253(a) is designed to protect “any entity” seeking to provide telecommunications services from state and local barriers to entry, and Sections 253(b) and (c) emphasize the importance of “competitively neutral” and “nondiscriminatory” treatment of providers.104 Yet focusing on whether the carrier seeking relief faces an insurmountable barrier to entry would lead to disparities in statutory protections among providers based merely on considerations such as their access to capital and the breadth or narrowness of their entry strategies.105 In addition, the Commission has observed in connection with Section 253: “Each local government may believe it is simply protecting the (Continued from previous page) “statewide entry” plans that new entrants “may reasonable contemplate” in violation of Section 253(a) notwithstanding claims that the specific new entrants at issue had “‘vast resources and access to capital’ sufficient to meet those added costs. Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3498, para. 78. The Commission also has expressed “great concern” about an exclusive rights-of-way access agreement that “appear[ed] to have the potential to adversely affect the provision of telecommunications services by facilities-based providers, in violation of the provision of section 253(a).” Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21700, para. 3. As another example, in the Western Wireless Order, the Commission stated that a “universal service fund mechanism that provides funding only to ILECs” would likely violate Section 253(a) not because it was insurmountable but because it would “effectively lower the price of ILEC-provided service relative to competitor-provided service” and thus “give customers a strong incentive to choose service from ILECs rather than competitors.” Western Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16231, para. 8. 102 We discuss specific applications of the California Payphone standard in the context of certain fees and non-fee regulations in the sections below; we leave others to be addressed case-by-case as they arise or otherwise are taken up by the Commission or courts in the future. 103 Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 491 (2002) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Level 3 Communications, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Level 3 Communications, LLC v. City of St. Louis, No. 08-626, at 13 (filed Nov. 7, 2008) (“[T]he term ‘[p]rohibit’ commonly has a less absolute meaning than that adopted below, and properly refers to actions that ‘hold back,’ ‘hinder,’ or ‘obstruct.’” (quoting Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 1546 (2d ed. 1998)). We thus are not compelled to interpret ‘effective prohibition’ to set the high bar suggested by some commenters based on other dictionary definitions. Smart Communities Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 17-84, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 7 (filed Sept. 4, 2018). Because we are unpersuaded that the statutory terminology requires us to interpret an effective prohibition as satisfied only by an insurmountable barrier to entry, we likewise reject commenters’ attempts to argue that “effective prohibition” must be understood to set a higher bar by comparison to the “impairment” language in Section 251 of the Act and associated regulatory interpretations of network unbundling requirements taken from that context. Id at 6. In addition, commenters do not demonstrate why the statutory framework and regulatory context of network unbundling under Section 251—and the specific concerns about access by non-facilities-based providers to competitive networks underlying the court precedent they cite—is sufficiently analogous to that of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) that statements from that context should inform our interpretation here. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. at 392. In responding to these discrete arguments raised in a petition for reconsideration of the Moratoria Declaratory Ruling that bear on actions we take in this order we do not thereby resolve any of the petition’s arguments with respect to that order. The requests for relief raised in the petition remain pending in full. 104 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (b), (c). 105 See, e.g., Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3498, para. 78 (rejecting claims that there should be a higher bar to find an effective prohibition for providers with significant financial resources and recognizing that the effects of the relevant state requirements on a given provider could differ depending on the planned geographic scope of entry). 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 interests of its constituents. The telecommunications interests of constituents, however, are not only local. They are statewide, national and international as well. We believe that Congress’ recognition of this fact was the genesis of its grant of preemption authority to this Commission.”106 As illustrated by our consideration of effective prohibitions flowing from state and local fees, there also can be cases where a narrow focus on whether an insurmountable barrier can be shown within the jurisdiction imposing a particular legal requirement would neglect the serious effects that flow through in other jurisdictions as a result, including harms to regional or national deployment efforts.107 B. State and Local Fees 43. Federal courts have long recognized that the fees charged by local governments for the deployment of communications infrastructure can run afoul of the limits Congress imposed in the effective prohibition standard embodied in Sections 253 and 332.108 In Municipality of Guayanilla, for example, the First Circuit addressed whether a city could lawfully charge a 5 percent gross revenue fee. The court found that the “5% gross revenue fee would constitute a substantial increase in costs” for the provider, and that the ordinance consequently “will negatively affect [the provider’s] profitability.”109 The fee, together with other requirements, thus “place a significant burden” on the provider.110 In light of this analysis, the First Circuit agreed that the fee “‘materially inhibits or limits the ability’” of the provider “‘to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.’”111 The court thus held that the fee does not survive scrutiny under Section 253. In doing so, the First Circuit also noted that the inquiry is not limited to the impact that a fee would have on deployment in the jurisdiction that imposes the fee. Rather, the court noted the aggregate effect of fees when totaled across all relevant jurisdictions.112 At the same time, the First Circuit did not decide whether the fair and reasonable compensation allowed under Section 253 must be limited to cost recovery or, at the very least, related to the actual use of the ROW.113 44. In City of White Plains, the Second Circuit likewise faced a 5 percent gross revenue fee, which it found to be “[t]he most significant provision” in a franchise agreement implementing an ordinance that the court concluded effectively prohibited service in violation of Section 253.114 While the court noted that “compensation is . . . sometimes used as a synonym for cost,”115 it ultimately did not resolve whether fair and reasonable compensation “is limited to cost recovery, or whether it also extends to a reasonable rent,” relying instead on the fact that “White Plains has not attempted to charge Verizon

106 TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Preemption and Other Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 541, 544(e), and 253, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 21396, 21442, para. 106 (1997) (TCI Cablevision Order). 107 See infra Part III.B. 108 The Commission also has recognized the potential for fees to result in an effective prohibition. See, e.g., Pittencrieff, 13 FCC Rcd at 1751-52, para. 37 (observing that “even a neutral [universal service] contribution requirement might under some circumstances effectively prohibit an entity from offering a service”). 109 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18-19. 110 Id. at 19. 111 Id. (quoting City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 76). 112 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 17 (looking at the aggregate cost of fees charged across jurisdictions given the interconnected nature of the service). 113 Id. at 22 (“We need not decide whether fees imposed on telecommunications providers by state and local governments must be limited to cost recovery. We agree with the district court’s reasoning that fees should be, at the very least, related to the actual use of rights of way and that ‘the costs [of maintaining those rights of way] are an essential part of the equation.’”). 114 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 77. 115 Id. In this context, the court stated that the term “compensation” is “flexible” and capable of different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Id. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

the fee that it seeks to charge TCG,” thus failing Section 253’s “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory” standard.116 But the court did observe that “Section 253(c) requires compensation to be reasonable essentially to prevent monopolist pricing by towns.”117 45. In another example, the Tenth Circuit in City of Santa Fe addressed a $6,000 per foot fee set for Qwest’s use of the ROW.118 The court held “that the rental provisions are prohibitive because they create[d] a massive increase in cost” for Qwest.119 The court recognized that Section 253 allows the recovery of cost-based fees, though it ultimately did not decide whether to “measure ‘fair and reasonable’ by the City’s costs or by a ‘totality of circumstances test’” applied in other courts because it determined that the fees at issue were not cost-based and “fail[ed] even the totality of the circumstances test.”120 Consequently, the fee was preempted under Section 253. 46. At the same time, the courts have adopted different approaches to analyzing whether fees run afoul of Section 253, at times failing even to articulate a particular test.121 Among other things, courts have expressed different views on whether Section 253 limits states’ and localities’ fees to recovery of their costs or allows fees set in excess of that level.122 We articulate below the Commission’s interpretation of Section 253(a) and the standards we adopt for evaluating when a fee for Small Wireless Facility deployment is preempted, regardless how the fee is challenged. We also clarify that the Commission interprets Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to have the same substantive meaning as Section 253(a). 47. Record Evidence on Costs Associated with Small Wireless Facilities. Keeping pace with the demands on current 4G networks and upgrading our country’s wireless infrastructure to 5G require

116 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 79. In particular, the court concluded that “fees that exempt one competitor are inherently not ‘competitively neutral,’ regardless of how that competitor uses its resulting market advantage,” id. at 80, and thus “[a]llowing White Plains to strengthen the competitive position of the incumbent service provider would run directly contrary to the pro-competitive goals of the [1996 Act],” id. at 79. 117 Id. 118 City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1270-71. 119 Id. at 1271. 120 Id. at 1272 (observing that “[t]he City acknowledges . . . that the rent required by the Ordinance is not limited to recovery of costs”). 121 Compare, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 18-19 (finding that fees were significant and had the effect of prohibiting service); City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1271 (similar); with, e.g., Qwest v. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist., 616 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1123-24 (D.N.M. 2008) (rejecting Qwest’s reliance on preceding finding of effective prohibition from quadrupled costs where the fee at issue was a penny per foot); Qwest v. City of Portland, 2006 WL 2679543, *15 (D. Or. 2006) (asserting with no explanation that “a registration fee of $35 and a refundable deposit of $2,000 towards processing expenses . . . could not possibly have the effect of prohibiting Qwest from providing telecommunications services”). 122 For example and as noted above, in Municipality of Guayanilla the First Circuit reserved judgment on whether the fair and reasonable compensation allowed under Section 253 must be limited to cost recovery or if it was sufficient if the compensation was related to the actual use of rights of way. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 22. Other courts have found reasonable compensation to require cost-based fees. XO Missouri v. City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d 987, 993-95 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (City of Maryland Heights); Bell Atlantic–Maryland, Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 49 F. Supp. 2d 805, 818 (D. Md. 1999) (Prince George’s County) vacated on other grounds, 212 F.3d 863 (4th Cir. 2000). Still other courts have applied a test that weighs a number of considerations when evaluating whether compensation is fair and reasonable. TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d 618, 625 (6th Cir. 2000) (City of Dearborn) (considering “the amount of use contemplated . . . the amount that other providers would be willing to pay . . . and the fact that TCG had agreed in earlier negotiations to a fee almost identical to what it now was challenging as unfair”). 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

the deployment of many more Small Wireless Facilities.123 For example, Verizon anticipates that network densification and the upgrade to 5G will require 10 to 100 times more antenna locations than currently exist. AT&T estimates that providers will deploy hundreds of thousands of wireless facilities in the next few years alone—equal to or more than the number providers have deployed in total over the last few decades.124 Sprint, in turn, has announced plans to build at least 40,000 new small sites over the next few years.125 A report from Accenture estimates that, overall, during the next three or four years, 300,000 small cells will need to be deployed—a total that it notes is “roughly double the number of macro cells built over the last 30 years.”126 48. The many-fold increase in Small Wireless Facilities will magnify per-facility fees charged to providers. Per-facility fees that once may have been tolerable when providers built macro towers several miles apart now act as effective prohibitions when multiplied by each of the many Small Wireless Facilities to be deployed. Thus, a per-facility fee may affect a prohibition on 5G service or the densification needed to continue 4G service even if that same per-facility fee did not effectively prohibit previous generations of wireless service. 49. Cognizant of the changing technology and its interaction with regulations created for a previous generation of service, the 2017 Wireline Infrastructure NPRM/NOI sought comment on whether government-imposed fees could act as a prohibition within the meaning of Section 253, and if so, what fees would qualify for 253(c)’s savings clause.127 The 2017 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI similarly sought comment on the scope of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) and on any new or updated guidance the Commission should provide, potentially through a Declaratory Ruling.128 In particular, the Commission sought comment on whether it should provide further guidance on how to interpret and apply the phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting.”129 50. We conclude that ROW access fees, and fees for the use of government property in the ROW,130 such as light poles, traffic lights, utility poles, and other similar property suitable for hosting

123 See CTIA June 27, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (“[s]mall cell technology is needed to support 4G densification and 5G connectivity.”); see also Accelerating Wireless Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 9760, 9765, para. 12 (2017) (2017 Pole Replacement Order) (recognizing that Small Wireless Facilities will be increasingly necessary to support the rollout of next-generation services). 124 See Verizon Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 1. 125 See Letter from Keith C. Buell, Senior Counsel, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Feb. 21, 2018). 126 Accelerating Future Economic Value Report at 6; see also Deloitte 5G Paper. 127 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 3266, 3296-97, paras. 100 -101 and 3298-99, paras. 104- 105 (2017). 128 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3360, para. 87. In addition, in 2016, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on ways to expedite the deployment of next generation wireless infrastructure, including providing guidance on application processing fees and charges for use of rights of way. See Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13360 (WTB 2016). 129 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3362, para. 90. 130 We do not find these fees to be taxes within the meaning of Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act. See, e.g., Smart Communities Reply at 36 (quoting the savings clause for “State or local law pertaining to taxation” in Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act). It is ambiguous whether a fee charged for access to ROWs should be viewed as a tax for purposes of Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. FCC, 118 F.3d 393, 397-98 (5th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing “the price paid to rent use of public right-of-ways” from a “tax” and citing similar precedent). Given that Congress clearly contemplated in Section 253(c) that states’ and localities’ fees for access to ROWs could be subject to preemption where they violate Section 253—or else the savings clause in that regard would be superfluous—we find the better view is that such fees do not represent a tax encompassed by Section 601(c)(2) of 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Small Wireless Facilities, as well as application or review fees and similar fees imposed by a state or local government as part of their regulation of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities inside and outside the ROW, violate Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) unless these conditions are met: (1) the fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government’s costs,131 (2) only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and (3) the fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations.132 51. We base our interpretation on several considerations, including the text and structure of the Act as informed by legislative history, the economics of capital expenditures in the context of Small Wireless Facilities (including the manner in which capital budgets are fixed ex ante), and the extensive record evidence that shows the actual effects that state and local fees have in deterring wireless providers from adding to, improving, or densifying their networks and consequently the service offered over them (including, but not limited to, introducing next-generation 5G wireless service). We address each of these considerations in turn. 52. Text and Structure. We start our analysis with a consideration of the text and structure of Section 253. That section contains several related provisions that operate in tandem to define the roles that Congress intended the federal government, states, and localities to play in regulating the provision of telecommunications services. Section 253(a) sets forth Congress’s intent to preempt state or local legal requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”133 Section 253(b), in turn, makes clear Congress’s intent that state “requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights

(Continued from previous page) the 1996 Act. We do not address whether particular fees could be considered taxes under other statutes not administered by the FCC, but we reject the suggestion that tests courts use to determine what constitute “taxes” in the context of such other statutes should apply to the Commission’s interpretation of Section 601(c)(2) here in light of the statutory context for Section 601(c)(2) in the 1996 Act and the Communications Act discussed above. See, e.g., Qwest Corp. v. City of Surprise, 434 F.3d 1176, 1183-84 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that particular fees at issue there were taxes for purposes of the Tax Injunction Act and stating in dicta that had the Tax Injunction Act not applied it would agree with the conclusion of the district court that it was covered by Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act); MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 359 F. Appx. 692, 696 (9th Cir. 2009) (asserting without analysis that the same test would apply to determine if a fee constitutes a tax under both the Tax Injunction Act and Section 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act). 131 By costs, we mean those costs specifically related to and caused by the deployment. These include, for instance, the costs of processing applications or permits, maintaining the ROW, and maintaining a structure within the ROW. See Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 354 F. Supp. 2d 107, 114 (D.P.R. 2005) (Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion), aff'd, 450 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2006) (“fees charged by a municipality need to be related to the degree of actual use of the public rights-of way” to constitute fair and reasonable compensation under Section 253(c)). 132 We explain above what we mean by “fees.” See supra note 71. Contrary to some claims, we are not asserting a “general ratemaking authority.” Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 6. Our interpretations in this order bear on whether and when fees associated with Small Wireless Facility deployment have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications service and thus are subject to preemption under Section 253(a), informed by the savings clause in Section 253(c). While that can implicate issues surrounding how those fees were established, it does so only to the extent needed to vindicate Congress’s intent in Section 253. We do not interpret Section 253(a) or (c) to authorize the regulation or establishment of state and local fees as an exercise in itself. We likewise are not persuaded by undeveloped assertions that the Commission’s interpretation of Section 253 in the context of fees would somehow violate constitutional separation of powers principles. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 52. 133 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 of consumers” are not preempted.134 Of particular importance in the fee context, Section 253(c) reflects a considered policy judgment that “[n]othing in this section” shall prevent states and localities from recovering certain carefully delineated fees. Specifically, Section 253(c) makes clear that fees are not preempted that are “fair and reasonable” and imposed on a “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis,” for “use of public rights-of-way on a “nondiscriminatory basis,” so long as they are “publicly disclosed” by the government.135 Section 253(d), in turn, provides one non-exclusive mechanism by which a party can obtain a determination from the Commission of whether a specific state or local requirement is preempted under Section 253(a)—namely, by filing a petition with the Commission.136 53. In reviewing this statutory scheme, the Commission previously has construed Section 253(a) as “broadly limit[ing] the ability of state[s] to regulate,” while the remaining subsections set forth “defined areas in which states may regulate.”137 We reaffirm this conclusion, consistent with the view of most courts to have considered the issue—namely, that Sections 253(b) and (c) make clear that certain state or local laws, regulations, and legal requirements are not preempted under the expansive scope of Section 253(a).138 Our interpretation of Section 253(a) is informed by this statutory context,139 and the observation of courts that when a preemption provision precedes a narrowly-tailored savings clause, it is reasonable to infer that Congress intended a broad preemptive scope.140 We need not decide today whether Section 253(a) preempts all fees not expressly saved by Section 253(c) with respect to all types of deployments. Rather, we conclude, based on the record before us, that with respect to Small Wireless Facilities, even fees that might seem small in isolation have material and prohibitive effects on deployment,141 particularly when considered in the aggregate given the nature and volume of anticipated Small Wireless Facility deployment.142 Against this backdrop, and in light of significant evidence, set forth herein, that Congress intended Section 253 to preempt legal requirements that effectively prohibit service, including wireless infrastructure deployment, we view the substantive standards for fees that Congress sought to insulate from preemption in Section 253(c) as an appropriate ceiling for state and local fees that apply to the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in public ROWs.143

134 47 U.S.C. § 253(b). 135 47 U.S.C. § 253(c). 136 47 U.S.C. § 253(d). 137 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3481, para. 44. 138 See, e.g., Connect America Fund; Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5878, 5881, 5885-87, paras. 8, 19-25 (2017) (Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order); Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3480-81, paras. 41-44; Global Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 562 F.3d 145, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2009); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Houston, 529 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2008); City of St. Louis, 477 F.3d at 531-32 (8th Cir. 2007); Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 15-16; City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1269; BellSouth Telecomm’s, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 252 F.3d 1169, 1187-89 (11th Cir. 2001). Some courts appear to have viewed Section 253(c) as an independent basis for preemption. See, e.g., City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d at 624 (after concluding that a franchise fee did not violate Section 253(a), going on to evaluate whether it was “fair and reasonable” under Section 253(c)). We find more persuasive the Commission and other court precedent to the contrary, which we find better adheres to the statutory language. 139 See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014). 140 See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44-45 (1987); City of New York v. Permanent Mission of India to United Nations, 618 F.3d 172, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2010); Frank v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 314 F.3d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 2002); cf. United States v. Kay, 359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004) (justifying a broad reading of a statute given that Congress “narrowly defin[ed] exceptions and affirmative defenses against a backdrop of broad applicability”). 141 See infra paras. 62-63. 142 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 64. 143 See, e.g., Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 9-10. We therefore reject the view of those courts that have concluded that Section 253(a) necessarily requires some additional showing beyond the fact that a particular fee is not cost-based. See, e.g., Qwest v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (“we 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

54. In addition, notwithstanding that Section 253(c) only expressly governs ROW fees, we find it appropriate to look to its substantive standards as a ceiling for other state and local fees addressed by this Declaratory Ruling.144 For one, our evaluation of the material effects of fees on the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities does not differ whether the fees are for ROW access, use of government property within the ROW, or one-time application and review fees or the like—any of which drain limited capital resources that otherwise could be used for deployment—and we see no reason why the Act would tolerate a greater prohibitory effect in the case of application or review fees than for ROW fees.145 In addition, elements of the substantive standards for ROW fees in Section 253(c) appear at least analogous to elements of the California Payphone standard for evaluating an effective prohibition under Section 253(a). In pertinent part, both incorporate principles focused on the legal requirements to which a provider may be fairly subject,146 and seek to guard against competitive disparities.147 Without resolving the precise interplay of those concepts in Section 253(c) and the California Payphone standard, their similarities support our use of the substantive standards of Section 253(c) to inform our evaluation of fees at issue here that are not directly governed by that provision. 55. From the foregoing analysis, we can derive the three principles that we articulate in this Declaratory Ruling about the types of fees that are preempted. As explained in more detail below, we also interpret Section 253(c)’s “fair and reasonable compensation” provision to refer to fees that represent a reasonable approximation of actual and direct costs incurred by the government, where the costs being passed on are themselves objectively reasonable.148 Although there is precedent that “fair and reasonable” compensation could mean not only cost-based charges but also market-based charges in certain instances,149 the statutory context persuades us to adopt a cost-based interpretation here. In particular, while the general purpose of Section 253(c) is to preserve certain state and local conduct from preemption, it includes qualifications and limitations to cabin state and local action under that savings clause in ways that ensure appropriate protections for service providers. The reasonableness of interpreting the qualifications and limitations in the Section 253(c) savings clause as designed to protect the interests of service providers is emphasized by the statutory language. The “competitively neutral and

(Continued from previous page) decline to read” prior Ninth Circuit precedent “to mean that all non-cost based fees are automatically preempted, but rather that courts must consider the substance of the particular regulation at issue”). At the same time, our interpretation does not take the broader view of the preemptive scope of Section 253 adopted by the Sixth Circuit, which interpreted Section 253(c) as an independent prohibition on conduct that is not itself prohibited by Section 253(a). City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d at 624. 144 See supra note 71. 145 Cf. Cheney R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (observing that the expressio unius canon is a “feeble helper in an administrative setting, where Congress is presumed to have left to reasonable agency discretion questions that it has not directly resolved,” and concluding there that “Congress's mandate in one context with its silence in another suggests not a prohibition but simply a decision not to mandate any solution in the second context, i.e., to leave the question to agency discretion”). 146 For ROW compensation to be saved under Section 253(c) it must be “fair and reasonable,” while the California Payphone standard looks to whether a legal requirement “materially limits or inhibits” the ability to compete in a “fair” legal environment for a covered service. California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31. 147 For ROW compensation to be saved under Section 253(c) it also must be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory,” while the California Payphone standard also looks to whether a legal requirement “materially limits or inhibits” the ability to compete in a “balanced” legal environment for a covered service. California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31. 148 See infra paras. 69-77; see also, e.g., City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 993-95; Bell Atlantic– Maryland, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 818. 149 See, e.g., NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (statute did not unambiguously require the SEC to interpret “fair and reasonable” to mean cost-based, and the SEC’s reliance on market-based rates as “fair and reasonable” where there was competition was a reasonable interpretation). 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

nondiscriminatory” and public disclosure qualifications in Section 253(c) appear most naturally understood as protecting the interest of service providers from fees that otherwise would have been saved from preemption under Section 253(c) absent those qualifiers. Under the noscitur a sociis canon of statutory interpretation, that context persuades us that the “fair and reasonable” qualifier in Section 253(c) similarly should be understood as focused on protecting the interest of providers.150 As discussed in greater detail below, while it might well be fair for providers to bear basic, reasonable costs of entry,151 the record does not reveal why it would be fair or reasonable from the standpoint of protecting providers to require them to bear costs beyond that level, particularly in the context of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. In addition, the text of Section 253(c) provides that ROW access fees must be imposed on a “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis.” This means, for example, that fees charged to one provider cannot be materially higher than those charged to a competitor for similar uses.152 56. Other considerations support our approach, as well. By its terms, Section 253(a) preempts state or local legal requirements that “prohibit” or have the “effect of prohibiting” the provision of services, and we agree with court precedent that “[m]erely allowing the [local government] to recoup its processing costs . . . cannot in and of itself prohibit the provision of services.”153 The Commission has long understood that Section 253(a) is focused on state or local barriers to entry for the provision of service,154 and we conclude that states and localities do not impose an unreasonable barrier to entry when they merely require providers to bear the direct and reasonable costs caused by their decision to enter the market. 155 We decline to interpret a government’s recoupment of such fundamental costs of entry as having the effect of prohibiting the provision of services, nor has any commenter argued that recovery of cost by a government would prohibit service in a manner restricted by Section 253(a).156 Reasonable state and local regulation of facilities deployment is an important predicate for a viable marketplace for

150 See, e.g., Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734 (2017) (“A word is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted)). 151 See infra para. 56. 152 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 80. 153 City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d at 1269; see also Verizon Comments at 17. 154 See, e.g., Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5878, 5882-83, paras. 1, 13; Western Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16231, para. 8; Petition of the State of Minnesota for a Declaratory Ruling regarding the Effect of Section 253 on an Agreement to Install Fiber Optic Wholesale Transport Capacity in State Freeway Rights of Way, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 21697, 21707, para. 18 (Minnesota Order); Hyperion Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 11070, para. 13; Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3480, para. 41; TCI Cablevision Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21399, para. 7; California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14209, para. 38; see also, e.g., AT&T Comm’ns of the Sw. v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d 582, 593 (N.D. Tx. 1998) (AT&T v. City of Dallas) (“[A]ny fee that is not based on AT&T’s use of City rights-of-way violates § 253(a) of the FTA as an economic barrier to entry.”); Verizon Comments at 11-12; Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 7. Because we view the California Payphone standard as reflecting a focus on barriers to entry, we decline requests to adopt a distinct, additional standard with that as an explicit focus. See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 35. 155 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 5240, 5301-03, paras. 142-45 (2011) (rejecting an approach to defining a lower bound rate for pole attachments that “would result in pole rental rates below incremental cost” as contrary to cost causation principles); Investigation of Interstate Access Tariff Non-Recurring Charges, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3498, 3502, para. 34 (1987) (observing in the rate regulation context that “the public interest is best served, and a competitive marketplace is best encouraged, by policies that promote the recovery of costs from the cost-causer”). Our interpretation limiting states and localities to the recovery of a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable cost also takes into account state and local governments’ exclusive control over access to the ROW. 156 For example, Verizon states that “[a]lthough any fee could be said to raise the cost of providing service,” Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 9, “[t]he Commission should interpret . . . Section 253(a) to allow cost- based fees for access to public rights-of-way and structures within them, but to prohibit above-cost fees that generate revenue in excess of state and local governments’ actual costs.” Id., Attach. at 6. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 communications services by protecting property rights and guarding against conflicting deployments that could harm or otherwise interfere with others’ use of property.157 By contrast, fees that recover more than the state or local costs associated with facilities deployment—or that are based on unreasonable costs, such as exorbitant consultant fees or the like—go beyond such governmental recovery of fundamental costs of entry. In addition, interpreting Section 253(a) to prohibit states and localities from recovering a reasonable approximation of reasonable costs could interfere with the ability of states to exercise the police powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.158 We therefore conclude that Section 253(a) is circumscribed to permit states and localities to recover a reasonable approximation of their costs related to the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. 57. Commission Precedent. We draw further confidence in our conclusions from the Commission’s California Payphone decision, which we reaffirm here, finding that a state or local legal requirement would violate Section 253(a) if it “materially limits or inhibits” an entity’s ability to compete in a “balanced” legal environment for a covered service.159 As explained above, fees charged by a state or locality that recover the reasonable approximation of reasonable costs do not “materially inhibit” a provider’s ability to compete in a “balanced” legal environment. To the contrary, those costs enable localities to recover their necessary expenditures to provide a stable and predictable framework in which market participants can enter and compete. On the other hand, in the Texas PUC Order interpreting California Payphone, the Commission concluded that state or local legal requirements such as fees that impose a “financial burden” on providers can be effectively prohibitive.160 As the record shows, excessive state and local governments’ fees assessed on the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in the ROW in fact materially inhibit the ability of many providers to compete in a balanced environment.161 58. California Payphone and Texas PUC separately support the conclusion that fees cannot be discriminatory or introduce competitive disparities, as such fees would be inconsistent with a “balanced” regulatory marketplace. Thus, fees that treat one competitor materially differently than other competitors in similar situations are themselves grounds for finding an effective prohibition—even in the case of fees that are a reasonable approximation of the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the state or locality. Indeed, the Commission has previously recognized the potential for subsidies provided to one

157 See, e.g., TCI Cablevision Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21441, para. 103; see also, e.g., Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCI. 1243 (1968). States’ or localities’ regulation premised on addressing effects of deployment besides these costs caused by facilities deployment are distinct issues, which we discuss below. See infra Part III.C. 158 The Supreme Court has recognized that land use regulation can involve an exercise of police powers. See, e.g., Hodel v. Va. Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981). As that Court observed, “[i]t would . . . be a radical departure from long-established precedent for this Court to hold that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from displacing state police power laws regulating private activity.” Id. at 292. At the same time, the Court also has held that “historic police powers of the States” are not to be preempted by federal law “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 605 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). As relevant here, we see no clear and manifest intent that Congress intended to preempt publicly disclosed, objectively reasonable cost-based fees imposed on a nondiscriminatory basis, particularly in light of Section 253(c). 159 We disagree with suggestions that the Commission applied an additional and more stringent “commercial viability” test in California Payphone. See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10. Instead, the Commission was simply evaluating the Section 253 petition on its own terms, see, e.g., California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14204, 14210, paras. 27, 41, and, without purporting to define the bounds of Section 253(a), explaining that the petitioner “ha[d] not sufficiently supported its allegation” that the provision of service at issue “would be ‘impractical and uneconomic.’” Id. at 14210, para. 41. Confirming that this language was simply the Commission’s short-hand reference to arguments put forward by the petitioner itself, and not a Commission-announced standard for applying Section 253, the Commission has not applied a “commercial viability” standard in other decisions, as these same commenters recognize. See, e.g., Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 10. 160 Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3466, 3498-500, paras. 13, 78-81. 161 See infra paras. 60-65. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 competitor to distort the marketplace and create a barrier to entry in violation of Section 253(a).162 We reaffirm that conclusion here. 59. Legislative History. While our interpretation follows directly from the text and structure of the Act, our conclusion finds further support in the legislative history, which reflects Congress’s focus on the ability of states and localities to recover the reasonable costs they incur in maintaining the rights of way.163 Significantly, Senator Dianne Feinstein, during the floor debate on Section 253(c), “offered examples of the types of restrictions that Congress intended to permit under Section 253(c), including [to] ‘require a company to pay fees to recover an appropriate share of the increased street repair and paving costs that result from repeated excavation.’”164 Representative Bart Stupak, a sponsor of the legislation, similarly explained during the debate on Section 253 that “if a company plans to run 100 miles of trenching in our streets and wires to all parts of the cities, it imposes a different burden on the right-of- way than a company that just wants to string a wire across two streets to a couple of buildings,” making clear that the compensation described in the statute is related to the burden, or cost, from a provider’s use of the ROW.165 These statements buttress our interpretation of the text and structure of Section 253 and confirm Congress’s apparent intent to craft specific safe harbors for states and localities, and to permit recovery of reasonable costs related to the ROW as “fair and reasonable compensation,” while preempting fees above a reasonable approximation of cost that improperly inhibit service.166 60. Capital Expenditures. Apart from the text, structure, and legislative history of the 1996 Act, an additional, independent justification for our interpretation follows from the simple, logical premise, supported by the record, that state and local fees in one place of deployment necessarily have the effect of reducing the amount of capital that providers can use to deploy infrastructure elsewhere, whether the reduction takes place on a local, regional or national level.167 We are persuaded that providers and infrastructure builders, like all economic actors, have a finite (though perhaps fluid)168 amount of resources to use for the deployment of infrastructure. This does not mean that these resources are limitless, however. We conclude that fees imposed by localities, above and beyond the recovery of localities’ reasonable costs, materially and improperly inhibit deployment that could have occurred elsewhere.169 This and regulatory uncertainty created by such effectively prohibitive conduct170 creates an

162 See, e.g., Western Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16231, para. 8. 163 See, e.g., WIA Comments, Attach. 2 at 70. 164 WIA Comments, Attach. 2 at 70 (quoting 141 Cong. Rec. S8172 (daily ed. June 12, 1995) (statement of Sen. Feinstein, quoting letter from Office of City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)) (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Verizon Comments at 15 (similar); City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 995-96. 165 141 Cong. Rec. H8460-01, H8460 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995). 166 We reject other comments downplaying the relevance of legislative statements by some commenters as inconsistent with the text and structure of the Act. See, e.g., League of Arizona Cities et al. Joint Comments at 27- 28; NATOA Comments, Exh. A at 26-28; Smart Communities Reply at 57-58; Cities of San Antonio et al. Reply at 20-21; see also, e.g., City of Portland v. Electric Lightwave, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1071-72 (D. Or. 2005). 167 At a minimum, this analysis complements and reinforces the justifications for our interpretation provided above. While the relevant language of Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is not limited just to Small Wireless Facilities, we proceed incrementally in our Declaratory Ruling here and address the record before us, which indicates that our interpretation of the effective prohibition standard here is particularly reasonable in the context of Small Wireless Facility deployment. 168 For example, the precise amount of these resources might shift as a service provider encounters unexpected costs, recovers costs passed on to subscribers, or earns a profit above those costs. 169 As Verizon observes, “[a] number of states enacted infrastructure legislation because they determined that rate relief was necessary to ensure wireless deployment,” and thus could be seen as having “acknowledged that excessive fees impose a substantial barrier to the provision of service.” Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 7-8. In view of the evidence in the record regarding the effect of state and local fees on capital expenditures, see, e.g., Corning Sept. 5, 2018 Ex Parte Letter (noting that cost savings from reduced small cell attachment and application 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

appreciable impact on resources that materially limits plans to deploy service. This record evidence emphasizes the importance of evaluating the effect of fees on Small Wireless Facility deployment on an aggregate basis. Consistent with the First Circuit’s analysis in Municipality of Guayanilla, the record persuades us that fees associated with Small Wireless Facility deployment lead to “a substantial increase in costs”—particularly when considered in the aggregate—thereby “plac[ing] a significant burden” on carriers and materially inhibiting their provision of service contrary to Section 253 of the Act.171 61. The record is replete with evidence that providers have limited capital budgets that are constrained by state and local fees.172 As AT&T explains, “[a]ll providers have limited capital dollars to invest, funds that are quickly depleted when drained by excessive ROW fees.”173 AT&T added that “[c]ompetitive demands will force carriers to deploy small cells in the largest cities. But, when those largest cities charge excessive fees to access ROWs and municipal ROW structures, carriers’ finite capital dollars are prematurely depleted, leaving less for investment in mid-level cities and smaller communities. Larger municipalities have little incentive to not overcharge, and mid-level cities and smaller

(Continued from previous page) fees could result in $2.4 billion in capital expenditure and that 97% of this capital expenditure would go toward investments in rural and suburban areas), we disagree with arguments that fees do not affect the deployment of wireless facilities in rural and underserved areas. See, e.g., Letter from Sam Liccardo, Mayor, City of San Jose, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 4 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (City of San Jose Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (stating that “whether or not a provider wishes to invest in a dense urban area, including underserved urban areas, or a rural area is fundamentally based on the size of the customer base and the market demand for service-not on the purported wiles of a ‘must-serve’ jurisdiction somehow forcing investment away from rural areas because a right of way or attachment fee is charged.”); Letter from Joanne Hovis, Chief Executive Officer, Coalition for Local Internet Choice, James Baller, President, Coalition for Local Internet Choice, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (“in lucrative areas, carriers will pay market fees for access to property just as they would any other cost of doing business. But they will not, as rational economic actors, necessarily apply new profits (created by FCC preemption) to deploying in otherwise unattractive areas.”). 170 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 32 (identifying “disparate interpretations” regarding the fees that are preempted and seeking FCC clarification to “dispel the resulting uncertainty”); Verizon Comments at 10 (similar); Letter from Cathleen A. Massey, Vice Pres.-Fed. Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attach. at 7 (filed Sept. 21, 2017) (seeking clarification of Section 253); BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, p. 9 (“The FCC should provide guidance on what constitutes a fee that is excessive and/or duplicative, and that therefore is not ‘fair and reasonable.’ The Commission should specifically clarify that ‘fair and reasonable’ compensation for right-of way access and use implies some relation to the burden of new equipment placed in the ROW or on the local asset, or some other objective standard.”). 171 Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 19. 172 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; Conterra Broadband et al. Comments at 6; Mobilitie Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at 17; Letter from Courtney Neville, Associate General Counsel, Competitive Carriers Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2-3 (filed July 16, 2018) (CCA July 16, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Henry Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed June 8, 2018) (AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Letter from Katharine R. Saunders, Managing Associate General Counsel, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed June 21, 2018) (Verizon June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Ronald W. Del Sesto, Jr., Counsel for Uniti Fiber, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 5 (filed Oct. 30, 2017); Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 2-4. When developing capital budgets, companies rationally would account for anticipated revenues associated with the services that can be provided by virtue of planned facilities deployment, and the record does not reveal—nor do we see any basis to assume—that such revenues would be so great as to eliminate constraints on providers’ capital budgets so as to enable full deployment notwithstanding the level of state and local fees. 173 AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 municipalities have no ability to avoid this harm.”174 As to areas that might not be sufficiently crucial to deployment to overcome high fees, AT&T identified jurisdictions in Maryland, California, and Massachusetts where high fees have directly resulted in paused or decreased deployments.175 Limiting localities to reasonable cost recovery will “allow[] AT&T and other providers to stretch finite capital dollars to additional communities.”176 Verizon similarly explains that “[c]apital budgets are finite. When providers are forced to spend more to deploy infrastructure in one locality, there is less money to spend in others. The leverage that some cities have to extract high fees means that other localities will not enjoy next generation wireless broadband services as quickly, if at all.”177 Sprint, too, affirms that, because “all carriers face limited capital budgets, they are forced to limit the number and pace of their deployment investments to areas where the delays and impediments are the least onerous, to the detriment of their customers and, ultimately and ironically, to the very jurisdictions that imposed obstacles in the first place.”178 Sprint gives a specific example of its deployments in two adjacent jurisdictions—the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County—and describes how high fees in the county prevented Sprint from activating any small cells there, while more than 500 deployments occurred in the city, which had significantly lower fees.179 Similarly, Conterra Broadband states that “[w]hen time and capital are diverted away from actual facility installation and instead devoted to clearing regulatory roadblocks, consumers and enterprises, including local small businesses, schools and healthcare centers, suffer.”180 Based on the record, we find that fees charged by states and localities are causing actual delays and restrictions on deployments of Small Wireless Facilities in a number of places across the country in violation of Section 253(a).181 62. Our conclusion finds further support when one considers the aggregate effects of fees imposed by individual localities, including, but not limited to, the potential limiting implications for a nationwide wireless network that reaches all Americans, which is among the key objectives of the statutory provisions in the 1996 Act that we interpret here.182 When evaluating whether fees result in an effective prohibition of service due to financial burden, we must consider the marketplace regionally and nationally and thus must consider the cumulative effects of state or local fees on service in multiple geographic areas that providers serve or potentially would serve. Where providers seek to operate on a regional or national basis, they have constrained resources for entering new markets or introducing, expanding, or improving existing services, particularly given that a provider’s capital budget for a given

174 Id. 175 Id. (pausing or delaying deployments in Citrus Heights, CA, Oakland, CA and three Maryland counties; decreasing deployments in Lowell, MA and decreasing deployments from 98 to 25 sites in Escondido, CA). 176 Id. 177 Verizon Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 5, Attach. at 2-4. 178 Sprint Comments at 17. 179 Sprint Aug. 13, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2. 180 Conterra Broadband et al. Comments at 6; see also Letter from John Scott, Counsel for Mobilitie, LLC to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (“high fees imposed by some cities hurt other cities that have reasonable fees, because they reduce capital resources that might have gone to those cities, and because they pressure other financially strapped cities not to turn away what appears to be a revenue opportunity”). 181 Letter from Kenneth J. Simon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Crown Castle, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 4 (filed August 10, 2018) (Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 182 New England Public Comms. Council Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19713, 19717, para. 9 (1996) (1996 Act intent of “accelerat[ing] deployment of advanced telecommunications services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.”); see also Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 7. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 period of time is often set in advance.183 In such cases, the resources consumed in serving one geographic area are likely to deplete the resources available for serving other areas.184 The text of Section 253(a) is not limited by its terms only to effective prohibitions within the geographic area targeted by the state or local fee. Where a fee in a geographic area affects service outside that geographic area, the statute is most naturally read to encompass consideration of all affected areas. 63. A contrary, geographically-restrictive interpretation of Section 253(a) would exacerbate the digital divide by giving dense or wealthy states and localities that might be most critical for a provider to serve the ability to leverage their unique position to extract fees for their own benefit at the expense of regional or national deployment by decreasing the deployment resources available for less wealthy or dense jurisdictions.185 As a result, the areas likely to be hardest hit by excessive government fees are not necessarily jurisdictions that charge those fees, but rather areas where the case for new, expanded, or improved service was more marginal to start—and whose service may no longer be economically justifiable in the near-term given the resources demanded by the “must-serve” areas. To cite some examples of harmful aggregate effects, AT&T notes that high annual recurring fees are particularly harmful because of their “continuing and compounding nature.”186 It also states that, “if, as S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates, small-cell deployments reach nearly 800,000 by 2026, a ROW fee of $1000 per year …would result in nearly $800 million annually in forgone investment.” 187 Yet another commenter notes that, “[f]or a deployment that requires a vast number of small cell facilities across a metropolitan area, these fees quickly mount up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, often making deployment economically infeasible,” and “far exceed[ing] any costs the locality incurs by orders of magnitude, while taking capital that would otherwise go to investment in new infrastructure.”188 Endorsing such a result would thwart the purposes underlying Section 253(a). As Crown Castle observes, “[e]ven where the fees do not result in a direct lack of service in a high-demand area like a city or urban core, the high cost of building and operating facilities in these jurisdictions consume [sic] capital and revenue that could otherwise be used to expand wireless infrastructure in higher cost areas. This impact of egregious fees is prohibitory and should be taken into account in any prohibition analysis.”189 64. Some municipal commenters endorse a cost-based approach to “ensure that localities are fully compensated for their costs [and that] fees should be reasonable and non-discriminatory, and should ensure that localities are made whole”190 in recognition that “getting [5G] infrastructure out in a timely manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources.”191 Commenters from smaller municipalities recognize that “thousands and thousands of small cells are needed for 5G… [and]

183 See, e.g., AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Verizon June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 184 See, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 17 (“Given the interconnected nature of utility services across communities and the strain that the enactment of gross revenue fees in multiple municipalities would have on PRTC's provision of services, the Commonwealth-wide estimates are relevant to determining how the ordinance affects PRTC’s ‘ability . . . to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service’” under Section 253(a)). 185 See, e.g., Letter from Sam Liccardo, Mayor or San Jose, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Attachment at 1-2 (filed Aug. 2, 2018) (describing payment by providers of $24 million to a Digital Inclusion Fund in order to deploy small cells in San Jose on city owned light poles). 186 AT&T Comments at 19. 187 AT&T Comments at 19-20. 188 Mobilitie Comments at 3. 189 Crown Castle Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 190 Sal Pace July 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1. 191 LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

old regulations could hinder the timely arrival of 5G throughout the country”192 and urge the Commission to “establish some common-sense standards insofar as it relates to fees associated with the deployment of small cells [due to] a cottage industry of consultants [] who have wrongly counseled communities to adopt excessive and arbitrary fees.”193 Representatives from non-urban areas in particular caution that, “if the investment that goes into deploying 5G on the front end is consumed by big, urban areas, it will take longer for it to flow outwards in the direction of places like Florence, [SC].”194 “[R]educing the high regulatory costs in urban areas would leave more dollars to development in rural areas [because] most of investment capital is spent in the larger urban areas [since] the cost recovery can be made in those areas. This leaves the rural areas out.”195 We agree with these commenters, and we further agree with courts that have considered “the cumulative effect of future similar municipal [fees ordinances]” across a broad geographic area when evaluating the effect of a particular fee in the context of Section 253(a).196 To the extent that other municipal commenters argue that our interpretation gives wireless providers preferential treatment compared to other users of the ROW, the record does not contain data about other users that would support such a conclusion.197 In any event, Section 253 of the Communications Act expressly bars legal requirements that effectively prohibit telecommunications service without regard to whether it might result in preferential treatment for providers of that service.198 65. Applying this approach here, the record reveals that fees above a reasonable approximation of cost, even when they may not be perceived as excessive or likely to prohibit service in isolation, will have the effect of prohibiting wireless service when the aggregate effects are considered, particularly given the nature and volume of anticipated Small Wireless Facility deployment.199 The record reveals that these effects can take several forms. In some cases, the fees in a particular jurisdiction will lead to reduced or entirely forgone deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in the near term for that

192 Dr. Carolyn Prince July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 193 Letter from Ashton J. Hayward III, Mayor, Pensacola, FL to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed June 8, 2018). 194 Representative Terry Alexander Aug. 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1. 195 Senator Duane Ankney July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1; see also Letter from Elder Alexis D. Pipkins, Sr. to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC at 1 (filed July 26, 2018) (“the race to 5G is global…instead of each city or state for itself, we should be working towards aligned, streamlined frameworks that benefit us all.”); Letter from Jeffrey Bohm, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, County of St. Clair to Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket 17-79 at 1-2 (filed August 22, 2018) (“Smaller communities, such as those located in St. Clair County would benefit from having the Commissions reduce the costly and unnecessary fee’s that some larger communities place on small cells as a condition of deployment. These fees, wholly disproportionate to any cost, put communities like ours at an unfair disadvantage”); Letter from Scott Niesler, Mayor, City of Kings Mountain, to Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket 17-79 at 1-2 (filed June 4, 2018) (“the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted legislation to encourage the deployment of small cell technology to limit exorbitant fees which can siphon off capital from further expansion projects. I was encouraged to see the FCC taking similar steps to enact policies that help clear the way for the essential investment”). 196 Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 111-12; but see, e.g., Letter from Nina Beety to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 5 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Nina Beety Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (asserting that providers artificially under-capitalize their deployment budgets to build the case for poverty). 197 Letter from Larry Hanson, Executive Director, Georgia Municipal Association to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018) (Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 198 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 199 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 64. In addition, although one could argue that, in theory, a sufficiently small departure from actual and reasonable costs might not have the effect of prohibiting service in a particular instance, the record does not reveal an alternative, administrable approach to evaluating fees without a cost-based focus. 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

jurisdiction.200 In other cases, where it is essential for a provider to deploy in a given area, the fees charged in that geographic area can deprive providers of capital needed to deploy elsewhere, and lead to reduced or forgone near-term deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in other geographic areas.201 In both of those scenarios the bottom-line outcome on the national development of 5G networks is the same—diminished deployment of Small Wireless Facilities critical for wireless service and building out 5G networks.202 66. Some have argued that our decision today regarding Sections 253 and 332 should not be applied to preempt agreements (or provisions within agreements) entered into prior to this Declaratory Ruling.203 We note that courts have upheld the Commission’s preemption of the enforcement of provisions in private agreements that conflict with our decisions204 We therefore do not exempt existing agreements (or particular provisions contained therein) from the statutory requirements that we interpret here. That said, however, this Declaratory Ruling’s effect on any particular existing agreement will depend upon all the facts and circumstances of that specific case.205 Without examining the particular features of an agreement, including any exchanges of value that might not be reflected by looking at fee provisions alone, we cannot state that today’s decision does or does not impact any particular agreement entered into before this decision. 67. Relationship to Section 332. While the above analysis focuses on the text and structure of the Act, legislative history, Commission orders, and case law interpreting Section 253(a), we reiterate that in the fee context, as elsewhere, the statutory phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) has the same meaning as the phrase “prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting” in Section 253(a). As noted in the prior section, there is no evidence to suggest that Congress intended for virtually identical language to have different meanings in the two provisions.206 Instead, we find it

200 See, e.g., AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 201 AT&T June 8, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Verizon June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2; CCA July 16, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2-3. 202 See, e.g., Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Counsel to Corning, Inc. to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Jan 25, 2018), Attach. at 6-7 (comparing different effects on deployment between a base case and a high fee case, and estimating that pole attachment fees nationwide assuming high fees would result in 28.2M fewer premises passed, or 31 percent of the 5G Base case results, and an associated $37.9B in forgone network deployment). 203 City of San Jose Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2. 204 See, e.g., Building Owners and Managers Ass’n Int’l v. FCC, 254 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (OTARD rules barring exclusivity provisions in lease agreements). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “[w]here the Commission has been instructed by Congress to prohibit restrictions on the provision of a regulated means of communication, it may assert jurisdiction over a party that directly furnishes those restrictions, and, in so doing, the Commission may alter property rights created under State law.” Id. at 96; see also Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass’n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013). 205 For example, the City of Los Angeles asserts that fee provisions in its agreements with providers are not prohibitory and must be examined in light of a broader exchange of value contemplated by the agreements in their entirety. Letter from Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles to the Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept 18, 2018). We agree that agreements entered into before this decision will need to be examined in light of their potentially unique circumstances before a decision can be reached about whether those agreements or any particular provisions in those agreements are or are not impacted by today’s FCC decision. 206 We reject the claims of some commenters that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is limited exclusively to decisions on individual requests and therefore must be interpreted differently than Section 253(a). See, e.g., San Francisco Comments at 24-26. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) explicitly applies to “regulation of the placement, construction, and modification,” and it would be irrational to interpret “regulation” in that paragraph to mean something different from the term “regulation” as used in 253(a) or to find that it does not encompass generally applicable “regulations” as well as decisions on individual applications. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that San Francisco’s position reflects the appropriate interpretation of the scope of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the record does not reveal why a 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 more reasonable to conclude that the language in both sections generally should be interpreted to have the same meaning and to reflect the same standard, including with respect to preemption of fees that could “prohibit” or have “the effect of prohibiting” the provision of covered service. Both sections were enacted to address concerns about state and local government practices that undermined providers’ ability to provide covered services, and both bar state or local conduct that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting service. 68. To be sure, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) may relate to different categories of state and local fees. Ultimately, we need not resolve here the precise interplay between Sections 253 and 332(c)(7). It is enough for us to conclude that, collectively, Congress intended for the two provisions to cover the universe of fees charged by state and local governments in connection with the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. Given the analogous purposes of both sections and the consistent language used by Congress, we find the phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) should be construed as having the same meaning and governed by the same preemption standard as the identical language in Section 253(a).207 69. Application of the Interpretations and Principles Established Here. Consistent with the interpretations above, the requirement that compensation be limited to a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable costs and be non-discriminatory applies to all state and local government fees paid in connection with a provider’s use of the ROW to deploy Small Wireless Facilities including, but not limited to, fees for access to the ROW itself, and fees for the attachment to or use of property within the ROW owned or controlled by the government (e.g., street lights, traffic lights, utility poles, and other infrastructure within the ROW suitable for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities). This interpretation applies with equal force to any fees reasonably related to the placement, construction, maintenance, repair, movement, modification, upgrade, replacement, or removal of Small Wireless Facilities within the ROW, including, but not limited to, application or permit fees such as siting applications, zoning variance applications, building permits, electrical permits, parking permits, or excavation permits. 70. Applying the principles established in this Declaratory Ruling, a variety of fees not reasonably tethered to costs appear to violate Sections 253(a) or 332(c)(7) in the context of Small Wireless Facility deployments.208 For example, we agree with courts that have recognized that gross

(Continued from previous page) distinction between broadly-applicable requirements and decisions on individual requests would call for a materially different analytical approach, even if it arguably could be relevant when evaluating the application of that analytical approach to a particular preemption claim. In addition, although some commenters assert that such an interpretation “would make it virtually impossible for local governments to enforce their zoning laws with regard to wireless facility siting,” they provide no meaningful explanation why that would be the case. See, e.g., San Francisco Reply at 16. While some local commenters note that the savings clauses in Section 253(b) and (c) do not have express counterparts in the text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i), see, e.g., San Francisco Comments at 26, we are not persuaded that this compels a different interpretation of the virtually identical language restricting actual or effective prohibitions of service in Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), particularly given our reliance on considerations in addition to the savings clauses themselves when interpreting the “effective prohibition” language. See supra paras. 57-65. We offer these interpretations both to respond to comments and in the event that some court decision could be viewed as supporting a different result. 207 Section 253(a) expressly addresses state or local activities that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting “any entity” from providing a telecommunications service. 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission likewise interpreted Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) as implicated where the state or local conduct prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service by one entity even if another entity already is providing such service. See 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14016-19, paras. 56-65. 208 We acknowledge that a fee not calculated by reference to costs might nonetheless happen to land at a level that is a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable costs, and otherwise constitute fair and reasonable compensation as we describe herein. If all these criteria are met, the fee would not be preempted. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 revenue fees generally are not based on the costs associated with an entity’s use of the ROW,209 and where that is the case, are preempted under Section 253(a). In addition, although we reject calls to preclude a state or locality’s use of third party contractors or consultants, or to find all associated compensation preempted,210 we make clear that the principles discussed herein regarding the reasonableness of cost remain applicable. Thus, fees must not only be limited to a reasonable approximation of costs, but in order to be reflected in fees, the costs themselves must also be reasonable. Accordingly, any unreasonably high costs, such as excessive charges by third party contractors or consultants, may not be passed on through fees even though they are an actual “cost” to the government. If a locality opts to incur unreasonable costs, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) do not permit it to pass those costs on to providers. Fees that depart from these principles are not saved by Section 253(c), as we discuss below. 71. Interpretation of Section 253(c) in the Context of Fees. In this section, we turn to the interpretation of several provisions in Section 253(c), which provides that state or local action that otherwise would be subject to preemption under Section 253(a) may be permissible if it meets specified criteria. Section 253(c) expressly provides that state or local governments may require telecommunications providers to pay “fair and reasonable compensation” for use of public ROWs but requires that the amounts of any such compensation be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory” and “publicly disclosed.”211 72. We interpret the ambiguous phrase “fair and reasonable compensation,” within the statutory framework we outlined for Section 253, to allow state or local governments to charge fees that recover a reasonable approximation of the state or local governments’ actual and reasonable costs. We conclude that an appropriate yardstick for “fair and reasonable compensation,” and therefore an indicator of whether a fee violates Section 253(c), is whether it recovers a reasonable approximation of a state or local government’s objectively reasonable costs of, respectively, maintaining the ROW, maintaining a structure within the ROW, or processing an application or permit.212 73. We disagree with arguments that “fair and reasonable compensation” in Section 253(c) should somehow be interpreted to allow state and local governments to charge “any compensation,” and we give weight to BDAC comments that, “[a]s a policy matter, the Commission should recognize that local fees designed to maximize profit are barriers to deployment.”213 Several commenters argue, in

209 See, e.g., Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 21; City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 993-96; Prince George’s County, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 818; AT&T v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d at 593; see also, e.g., CTIA Comments at 30, 45; id. Attach. at 17; ExteNet Comments, Exh. 1 at 41; T-Mobile Comments at 7; WIA Comments at 52-53. 210 See, e.g., CCA Comments at 17-21 (asking the Commission to declare franchise fees or percentage of revenue fees outside the scope of fair and reasonable compensation and to prohibit state and localities from requiring service providers to obtain business licenses for individual cell sites). For example, although fees imposed by a state or local government calculated as a percentage of a provider’s revenue are unlikely to be a reasonable approximation of cost, if such a percentage-of-revenue fee were, in fact, ultimately shown to amount to a reasonable approximation of costs, the fee would not be preempted. 211 47 U.S.C. § 253(c). 212 Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 114 (“fees charged by a municipality need to be related to the degree of actual use of the public rights-of way” to constitute fair and reasonable compensation under Section 253(c)); New Jersey Payphone Ass’n, Inc. v. Town of West New York, 130 F. Supp. 2d 631, 638 (D.N.J. 2001), aff’d 299 F. 3d 235 (3d Cir. 2002) (New Jersey Payphone) (“Plainly, a fee that does more than make a municipality whole is not compensatory in the literal sense, and risks becoming an economic barrier to entry.”) 213 BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix C, p. 3 (a “[ROW] burden-oriented [fee] standard is flexible enough to suit varied localities and network architectures, would ensure that fees are not providing additional 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

particular, that Section 253(c)’s language must be read as permitting localities latitude to charge any fee at all214 or a “market-based rent.”215 Many of these arguments seem to suggest that Section 253 or 332 have not previously been read to impose limits on fees, but as noted above courts have long read these provisions as imposing such limits. Still others argue that limiting the fees state and local governments may charge amounts to requiring taxpayers to subsidize private companies’ use of public resources.216 We find little support in the record, legislative history, or case law for that position.217 Indeed, our

(Continued from previous page) revenues for other localities purposes unrelated to providing and maintaining the ROW, and would provide some basis to challenge fees that, on their face, are so high as to suggest their sole intent is to maximize revenue.”) 214 See, e.g., Baltimore Comments at 15-16 (noting that local governments traditionally impose fees based on rent, and other ROW users pay market-based fees and arguing that citizens should not have to “subsidize” wireless deployments); Bellevue et al. Reply at 12-13 (stating that “the FCC should compensate municipalities at fair market value because any physical invasion is a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and just compensation is “typically” calculated using fair market value.”); NLC Comments at 5 (“local governments, like private landlords, are entitled to collect rent for the use of their property and have a duty to their residents to assess appropriate compensation. This does not necessarily translate to restricting this compensation to just the cost of managing the asset—just as private property varies in value, so does municipal property.”); Smart Communities Reply at 7-10 (stating that “fair and reasonable compensation (i.e., fair market value) is not, as some commenters contend, measured by the regulatory cost for use of a ROW or other property; rather it is measured by what it would cost the user of the ROW to purchase rights form a local property owner.”). 215 Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 10 (listing “Local Government Perspectives”). 216 See, e.g., NLC Comments, Statement of the Hon. Gary Resnick, Mayor, Wilton Manors, FL Comments at 6-7 (“preemption of local fees or rent for use of government-owned light and traffic poles, or fees for use of the right-of- way amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of wireless providers and wireless infrastructure companies. There is no corresponding benefit for such taxpayers such as requiring the broadband industry to reduce consumer rates or offer advanced services to all communities within a certain time frame.”); Letter from Rondella M. Hawkins, Officer, City of Austin—Telecommunications & Regulatory Affairs, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Aug. 7, 2018) at 1. These commenters do not explain why allowing recovery of a reasonable approximation of the state or locality’s objectively reasonable costs would involve a taxpayer subsidy of service providers, and we are not persuaded that our interpretation would create a subsidy. 217 As discussed more fully above, Congress intended through Section 253 to preempt state and local governments from imposing barriers in the form of excessive fees, while also preserving state and local authority to protect specified interests through competitively neutral regulation consistent with the Act. Our interpretation of Section 253(c) is consistent with Congress’s objectives. Our interpretation of “fair and reasonable compensation” in Section 253(c) is also consistent with prior Commission action limiting fees, and easing access, to other critical communications infrastructure. For example, in implementing the requirement in the Pole Attachment Act that utilities charge “just and reasonable” rates, the Commission adopted rules limiting the rates utilities can impose on cable companies for pole attachments. Based on the costs associated with building and operation of poles, the rates the Commission adopted were upheld by the Supreme Court, which found that the rates imposed were permissible and not “confiscatory” because they “provid[ed] for the recovery of fully allocated cost, including the actual cost of capital.” See FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 254 (1987). Here, based on the specific language in the separate provision of Section 253, we interpret the “effective prohibition” language, as applied to small cells, to permit state and local governments to recover only “fair and reasonable compensation” for their maintenance of ROW and government-owned structures within ROW used to host Small Wireless Facilities. Relatedly, Smart Communities errs in arguing that the Commission’s Order “provides localities 60 days to provide access and sets the rate for access,” making it a “classic taking.” Smart Communities Sept. 19, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 25. To the contrary, the Commission has not given providers any right to compel access to any particular state or local property. Cf. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). There may well be legitimate reasons for states and localities to deny particular placement applications, and adjudication of whether such decisions amount to an effective prohibition must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, we note that the record in this proceeding reflects that the vast majority of local jurisdictions voluntarily accept placement of wireless, utility, and other facilities in their rights-of-way. And in any event, cost-based recovery of the type we provide here has been approved as just compensation for takings purposes in the context of such facilities. See Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F.3d 1357, 1368, 1370-71 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. 564.54 Acres 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

approach to compensation ensures that cities are not going into the red to support or subsidize the deployment of wireless infrastructure. 74. The existence of Section 253(c) makes clear that Congress anticipated that “effective prohibitions” could result from state or local government fees, and intended through that clause to provide protections in that respect, as discussed in greater detail herein.218 Against that backdrop, we find it unlikely that Congress would have left providers entirely at the mercy of effectively unconstrained requirements of state or local governments.219 Our interpretation of Section 253(c), in fact, is consistent with the views of many municipal commenters, at least with respect to one-time permit or application fees, and the members of the BDAC Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees, who unanimously concurred that one-time fees for municipal applications and permits, such as an electrical inspection or a building permit, should be based on the cost to the government of processing that application.220 The Ad Hoc Committee noted that “[the] cost-based fee structure [for one-time fees] unanimously approved by the committee accommodates the different siting related costs that different localities may incur to review and process permit applications, while precluding excessive fees that impede deployment.221 We find that the same reasoning should apply to other state and local government fees such as ROW access fees or fees for the use of government property within the ROW.222 75. We recognize that state and local governments incur a variety of direct and actual costs in connection with Small Wireless Facilities, such as the cost for staff to review the provider’s siting application, costs associated with a provider’s use of the ROW, and costs associated with maintaining the ROW itself or structures within the ROW to which Small Wireless Facilities are attached.223 We also recognize that direct and actual costs may vary by location, scope, and extent of providers’ planned deployments, such that different localities will have different fees under the interpretation set forth in this Declaratory Ruling.

(Continued from previous page) of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 513 (1979) (recognizing that alternative measure of compensation might be appropriate “with respect to public facilities such as roads or sewers”). 218 See supra Parts III.A, B. 219 See, e.g., City of White Plains, 305 F.3d at 78-79; Guayanilla District Ct. Opinion, 354 F. Supp. 2d at 114. We disagree with arguments that competition between municipalities, or competition from adjacent private landowners, would be sufficient to ensure reasonable pricing in the ROW. See e.g., Smart Communities Comments, Exh. 2, The Economics of Government Right of Way Fees, Declaration of Kevin Cahill, Ph.D at para. 15. We find this argument unpersuasive in view of the record evidence in this proceeding showing significant fees imposed on providers in localities across the country. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 18; Verizon Comments at 6-7; see also BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix. C, p. 2. 220 See, e.g., Smart Communities Comments Cahill 2A at 2-3 (noting that “…a common model is to charge a fee that covers the costs that a municipality incurs in conducting the inspections and proceedings required to allow entry, fees that cover ongoing costs associated with inspection or expansion of facilities ...”); Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 19 (noting that “application fees are based upon recovery of costs incurred by localities.”); Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 15-16. 221 See also Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report, p. 15-16. Although the BDAC Ad Hoc Rates and Fees Committee and municipal commenters only support a cost-based approach for one-time fees, we find no reason not to extend the same reasoning to ROW access fees or fees for the use of government property within the ROW, when all three types of fees are a legal requirement imposed by a government and pose an effective prohibition. The BDAC Rates and Fees Report did not provide a recommendation on fees for ROW access or fees for the use of government property within the ROW, and we disagree with suggestions that our ruling, which was consistent with the committee’s recommendation for one-time fees, circumvents the efforts of the Ad Hoc Rates and Fees Committee. See Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3. 222 See supra para. 50. 223 See, e.g., Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 18-19 (discussing range of costs that application fees cover). 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

76. Because we interpret fair and reasonable compensation as a reasonable approximation of costs, we do not suggest that localities must use any specific accounting method to document the costs they may incur when determining the fees they charge for Small Wireless Facilities within the ROW. Moreover, in order to simplify compliance, when a locality charges both types of recurring fees identified above (i.e., for access to the ROW and for use of or attachment to property in the ROW), we see no reason for concern with how it has allocated costs between those two types of fees. It is sufficient under the statute that the total of the two recurring fees reflects the total costs involved.224 Fees that cannot ultimately be shown by a state or locality to be a reasonable approximation of its costs, such as high fees designed to subsidize local government costs in another geographic area or accomplish some public policy objective beyond the providers’ use of the ROW, are not “fair and reasonable compensation…for use of the public rights-of-way” under Section 253(c).225 Likewise, we agree with both industry and municipal commenters that excessive and arbitrary consulting fees or other costs should not be recoverable as “fair and reasonable compensation,”226 because they are not a function of the provider’s “use” of the public ROW. 77. In addition to requiring that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” Section 253(c) requires that it be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.” The Commission has previously interpreted this language to prohibit states and localities from charging fees on new entrants and not on incumbents.227 Courts have similarly found that states and localities may not impose a range of fees on one provider but not on another228 and even some municipal commenters acknowledge that governments should not discriminate as to the fees charged to different providers.229 The record reflects continuing concerns from providers, however, that they face discriminatory charges.230 We reiterate the Commission’s previous determination that state and local governments may not impose fees on some providers that they do not impose on others. We would also be concerned about fees, whether one-time or recurring, related to Small Wireless Facilities, that exceed the fees for other wireless telecommunications infrastructure in similar situations, and to the extent that different fees are charged

224 See supra note 71 (identifying three categories of fees charged by states and localities). 225 47 U.S.C. § 253(c) (emphasis added). Our interpretation is consistent with court decisions interpreting the “fair and reasonable” compensation language as requiring fees charged by municipalities relate to the degree of actual use of a public ROW. See, e.g, Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 283 F. Supp. 2d 534, 543-44 (D.P.R. 2003); see also Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d at 21-24; City of Maryland Heights, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 984. 226 See Letter from Ashton J. Hayward III, Mayor, Pensacola, FL to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 1 (filed June 8, 2018); see also, Illinois Municipal League Comments at 2 (noting that proposed small cell legislation in Illinois allows municipalities to recover “reasonable costs incurred by the municipality in reviewing the application.”). 227 TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, 12 FCC Rcd. at 21443, para. 108 (1997). 228 City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 80. 229 City of Baltimore Reply at 15 (“The City does agree that rates to access the right of way by similar entities must be nondiscriminatory.”). Other commenters argue that nothing in Section 253 can apply to property in the ROW. City of San Francisco Reply at 2-3, 19 (denying that San Francisco is discriminatory to different providers but also asserting that “[l]ocal government fees for use of their poles are simply beyond the purview of section 253(c)”). 230 See, e.g., CFP Comments at 31-33 (noting that the City of Baltimore charges incumbent Verizon “less than $.07 per linear foot for the space that it leases in the public right-of-way” while it charges other providers “$3.33 per linear foot to lease space in the City's conduit). Some municipal commenters argue that wireless infrastructure occupies more space in the ROW. See Smart Communities Reply Comments at 82 (“wireless providers are placing many of those permanent facilities in the public rights-of-way, in ways that require much larger deployments. It is not discrimination to treat such different facilities differently, and to focus on their impacts”). We recognize that different uses of the ROW may warrant charging different fees, and we only find fees to be discriminatory and not competitively neutral when different amounts are charged for similar uses of the ROW. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

for similar use of the public ROW.231 78. Fee Levels Likely to Comply with Section 253. Our interpretation of Section 253(a) and “fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c) provides guidance for local and state fees charged with respect to one-time fees generally, and recurring fees for deployments in the ROW. Following suggestions for the Commission to “establish a presumptively reasonable ‘safe harbor’ for certain ROW and use fees,”232 and to facilitate the deployment of specific types of infrastructure critical to the rollout of 5G in coming years, we identify in this section three particular types of fee scenarios and supply specific guidance on amounts that presumptively are not prohibited by Section 253. Informed by our review of information from a range of sources, we conclude that fees at or below these amounts presumptively do not constitute an effective prohibition under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7), and are presumed to be “fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c). 79. Based on our review of the Commission’s pole attachment rate formula, which would require fees below the levels described in this paragraph, as well as small cell legislation in twenty states, local legislation from certain municipalities in states that have not passed small cell legislation, and comments in the record, we presume that the following fees would not be prohibited by Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7): (a) $500 for non-recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, or $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more Small Wireless Facilities; and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees, including any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the ROW.233 80. By presuming that fees at or below the levels above comply with Section 253, we assume

231 Our interpretation is consistent with principles described by the BDAC’s Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees. Draft BDAC Rates and Fees Report at 5 (Jul. 24, 2018) (listing “neutral treatment and access of all technologies and communication providers based upon extent/nature of ROW use” as principle to guide evaluation of rates and fees). 232 BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix C, p. 3. 233 These presumptive fee limits are based on a number of different sources of data. Many different state small cell bills, in particular, adopt similar fee limits despite their diversity of population densities and costs of living, and we expect that these presumptive fee limits will allow for recovery in excess of costs in many cases. 47 CFR § 1.1409; National Conference of State Legislatures, Mobile 5G and Small Cell Legislation, (May 7, 2018), http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/mobile-5g-and-small-cell- legislation.aspx (providing description of state small cell legislation); Little Rock, Ark. Ordinance No. 21,423 (June 6, 2017); NCTA August 20, 2018 Ex Parte Letter, Attachment; see also H.R. 2365, 2018 Leg. 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2018) ($100 per facility for first 5 small cells in application; $50 annual utility attachment rate, $50 ROW access fee); H.R. 189 149th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Del. 2017) ($100 per small wireless facility on application; fees not to exceed actual, direct and reasonable cost); S. 21320th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2017) ($100 per small wireless facility); H.R. 1991, 99th Gen. Assemb. 2nd Reg. Sess. (Missouri, 2018) ($100 for each facility collocated on authority pole; $150 annual fee per pole); H.R. 38 2018 Leg. Assemb. 2d Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2018) ($100 for each of first 5 small facilities in an application; $20 per pole annually; $250 per facility annually for access to ROW); S. 189, 2018 Leg. Gen. Sess. (Utah 2018) ($100 per facility to collocate on existing or replacement utility pole; $250 annual ROW fee per facility for certain attachments). See also Letter from Kara R. Graves, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, and D. Zachary Champ, Director, Government Affairs, WIA to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) Attach. (listing fees in twenty state small cell legislations) (CTIA/WIA Aug. 10, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Sen. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) at 3, Attach. (analyzing average and median recurring fee levels permitted under state legislation). These examples suggest that the fee levels we discuss above may be higher than what many states already allow and further support our finding that there should be only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the requirements of Section 253. We recognize that certain fees in a minority of state small cell bills are above the levels we presume to be allowed under Section 253. Any party may still charge fees above the levels we identify by demonstrating that the fee is a reasonable approximation of cost that itself is objectively reasonable. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 that there would be almost no litigation by providers over fees set at or below these levels. Likewise, our review of the record, including the many state small cell bills passed to date, indicate that there should be only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the requirements of Section 253. In those limited circumstances, a locality could prevail in charging fees that are above this level by showing that such fees nonetheless comply with the limits imposed by Section 253—that is, that they are (1) a reasonable approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are reasonable, and (3) are non-discriminatory.234 Allowing localities to charge fees above these levels upon this showing recognizes local variances in costs.235 C. Other State and Local Requirements that Govern Small Facilities Deployment 81. There are also other types of state and local land-use or zoning requirements that may restrict Small Wireless Facility deployments to the degree that they have the effect of prohibiting service in violation of Sections 253 and 332. In this section, we discuss how those statutory provisions apply to requirements outside the fee context, both generally and with a particular focus on aesthetic and undergrounding requirements. 82. As discussed above, a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”236 Our interpretation of that standard, as set forth above, applies equally to fees and to non-fee legal requirements. And as with fees, Section 253 contains certain safe harbors that permit some legal requirements that might otherwise be preempted by Section 253(a). Section 253(b) saves state “requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.237 And Section 253(c) preserves state and local authority to manage the public rights-of-way.238 83. Given the wide variety of possible legal requirements, we do not attempt here to determine which of every possible non-fee legal requirements are preempted for having the effect of prohibiting service, although our discussion of fees above should prove instructive in evaluating specific requirements. Instead, we focus on some specific types of requirements raised in the record and provide guidance on when those particular types of requirements are preempted by the statute. 84. Aesthetics. The Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI sought comment on whether deployment restrictions based on aesthetic or similar factors are widespread and, if so, how Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) should be applied to them.239 Parties describe a wide range of such requirements that allegedly restrict deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. For example, many providers criticize

234 Several state and local commenters express concern about the presumptively reasonable fee levels we establish, including concerns about the effect of the fee levels on existing fee-related provisions included in state and local legislation. See e.g., Letter from Kent Scarlett, Exec. Director, Ohio Municipal League to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Liz Kniss, Mayor, City of Palo Alto to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84 at 1 (filed Sept. 17, 2018). As stated above, while the fee levels we establish reflect our presumption regarding the level of fees that would be permissible under Section 253 and 332(c)(7), state or local fees that exceed these levels may be permissible if the fees are based on a reasonable approximation of costs and the costs themselves are objectively reasonable. 235 We emphasize that localities may charge fees to recover their objectively reasonable costs and thus reject arguments that our approach requires localities to bear the costs of small cell deployment or applies a one-size-fits- all standard. See, e,g., Letter from Mike Posey, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1-2 (filed Sept.11, 2018) (Mike Posey Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). 236 California Payphone, 12 FCC Rcd at 14206, para. 31; see supra paras. 34-42. 237 47 U.S.C. § 253(b). 238 47 U.S.C. § 253(c). 239 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3362-66, paras. 90-92, 95, 97-99. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

burdensome requirements to deploy facilities using “stealth” designs or other means of camouflage,240 as well as unduly stringent mandates regarding the size of equipment, colors of paint, and other details.241 Providers also assert that the procedures some localities use to evaluate the appearance of proposed facilities and to decide whether they comply with applicable land-use requirements are overly restrictive. 242 Many providers are particularly critical of the use of unduly vague or subjective criteria that may apply inconsistently to different providers or are only fully revealed after application, making it impossible for providers to take these requirements into account in their planning and adding to the time necessary to deploy facilities.243 At the same time, we have heard concerns in the record about carriers deploying unsightly facilities that are significantly out of step with similar, surrounding deployments. 85. State and local governments add that many of their aesthetic restrictions are justified by factors that the providers fail to mention. They assert that their zoning requirements and their review and enforcement procedures are properly designed to, among other things, (1) ensure that the design, appearance, and other features of buildings and structures are compatible with nearby land uses; (2) manage ROW so as to ensure traffic safety and coordinate various uses; and (3) protect the integrity of

240 See, e.g., CCIA Comments at 14-15 (discussing regulations enacted by Village of Skokie, Illinois); WIA Reply Comments (WT Docket No. 16-421) at 9-10 (discussing restrictions imposed by Town of Hempstead, New York); see also AT&T Comments at 14-17; PTA-FLA Comments at 19; Verizon Comments at 19-20; AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 ex parte at 3. 241 See, e.g., CCIA Comments at 13-14 (describing regulations established by Skokie, Illinois that prescribe in detail the permissible colors of paint and their potential for reflecting light); AT&T Aug. 6, 2018 ex parte at 3 (“Some municipalities require carriers to paint small cell cabinets a particular color when like requirements were not imposed on similar equipment placed in the ROW by electric incumbents, competitive telephone companies, or cable companies,” and asserts that it often “is highly burdensome to maintain non-factory paint schemes over years or decades, including changes to the municipal paint scheme,” due to “technical constraints as well such as manufacture warranty or operating parameters, such as heat dissipation, corrosion resistance, that are inconsistent with changes in color, or finish.”); AT&T Comments at 16-17 (contending that some localities “allow for a single size and configuration for small cell equipment while requiring case-by-case approval of any non-conforming equipment, even if smaller and upgraded in design and performance,” and thus effectively compel “providers [to] incur the added expense of conforming their equipment designs to the approved size and configuration, even if newer equipment is smaller, to avoid the delays associated with the approval of an alternative equipment design and the risk of rejection of that design.”); id. at 17 (some local governments “prohibit the placement of wireless facilities in and around historic properties and districts, regardless of the size of the equipment or the presence of existing more visually intrusive construction near the property or district”). 242 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 14-15 (criticizing San Francisco’s aesthetic review procedures that discriminate against providers and criteria and referring to extended litigation); CTIA Reply Comments at 17 (“San Francisco imposes discretionary aesthetic review for wireless ROW facilities.”); T-Mobile Comments at 40; but see San Francisco Comments at 3-7 (describing aesthetic review procedures). See also AT&T Comments at 13-17; Extenet Comments at 37; CTIA Comments at 21-22; Sprint Comments at 38-40; T-Mobile Comments at 8-12; Verizon Comments at 5-8. 243 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13-17; Sprint Comments at 38-40; T-Mobile Comments at 8-12; Verizon Comments at 5-8. WIA cites allegations that an unnamed city in California recently declined to support approval of a proposed small wireless installation, claiming that the installations do not meet “Planning and Zoning Protected Location Compatibility Standards,” even though the same equipment has been deployed elsewhere in the city dozens of times, and even though the “Protected Location” standards should not apply because the proposals are not on “protected view” streets). WIA Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 9-10; id. at 8 (noting that one city changed its aesthetic standards after a proposal was filed); AT&T Comments at 17 (noting that a design approval took over a year); Virginia Joint Commenters, WT Docket No. 16-421 (state law providing discretion for zoning authority to deny application because of “aesthetics” concerns without additional guidance); Extenet Reply Comments at 13 (noting that some “local governments impose aesthetic requirements based entirely on subjective considerations that effectively give local governments latitude to block a deployment for virtually any aesthetically- based reason”) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 their historic, cultural, and scenic resources and their citizens’ quality of life.244 86. Given these differing perspectives and the significant impact of aesthetic requirements on the ability to deploy infrastructure and provide service, we provide guidance on whether and in what circumstances aesthetic requirements violate the Act. This will help localities develop and implement lawful rules, enable providers to comply with these requirements, and facilitate the resolution of disputes. We conclude that aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance. 87. Like fees, compliance with aesthetic requirements imposes costs on providers, and the impact on their ability to provide service is just the same as the impact of fees. We therefore draw on our analysis of fees to address aesthetic requirements. We have explained above that fees that merely require providers to bear the direct and reasonable costs that their deployments impose on states and localities should not be viewed as having the effect of prohibiting service and are permissible.245 Analogously, aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are also permissible. In assessing whether this standard has been met, aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, because such discriminatory application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact, reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. For example, a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be considered an effective prohibition of service. 88. Finally, in order to establish that they are reasonable and reasonably directed to avoiding aesthetic harms, aesthetic requirements must be objective—i.e., they must incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner—and must be published in advance.246 “Secret” rules that require applicants to guess at what types of deployments will pass aesthetic muster substantially increase providers’ costs without providing any public benefit or addressing any public harm. Providers cannot design or implement rational plans for deploying Small Wireless Facilities if they cannot predict in advance what aesthetic requirements they will be obligated to satisfy to obtain permission to deploy a facility at any given site.247

244 See, e.g., NLC Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 8-10; Smart Communities Comments, WT Docket No. 16- 421 at 35-36; New York City Comments at 10-15; New Orleans Comments at 1-2, 5-8; San Francisco Comments at 3-12; CCUA Reply Comments at 5; Irvine (CA) Comments at 2; Oakland County (MI) Comments at 3-5; Florida Coalition of Local Gov’ts Reply Comments at 6-12 (justifications for undergrounding requirements); id. at 16-421 (justifications for municipal historic-preservation requirements); id. at 22-16 (justifications for aesthetics and design requirements). 245 See supra paras. 55-56. 246 Our decision to adopt this objective requirement is supported by the fact that many states have recently adopted limits on their localities’ aesthetic requirements that employ the term “objective.” See, e.g., Letter from Scott Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 8 (filed Sept. 19, 2018) (noting requirements enacted in the states of Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oklahoma, that local siting requirements for small wireless facilities be “objective”); see also Letter from Kara R. Graves, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 8 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) 247 Some local governments argue that, because different aesthetic concerns may apply to different neighborhoods, particularly those considered historic districts, it is not feasible for them to publish local aesthetic requirements in advance. See, e.g., Letter from Mark J. Schwartz, County Manager, Arlington County, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (Sept. 18, 2018) (Arlington County Sept. 18 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Allison Silberberg, Mayor, City of Alexandria, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (Sept. 18, 2018). We believe this concern is unfounded. As noted above, the fact that our approach here (including the publication requirement) is consistent with that already enacted in many state-level small cell bills supports the feasibility of our decision. Moreover, the aesthetic requirements to be published in advance need not 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

89. We appreciate that at least some localities will require some time to establish and publish aesthetics standards that are consistent with this Declaratory Ruling. Based on our review and evaluation of commenters’ concerns, we anticipate that such publication should take no longer than 180 days after publication of this decision in the Federal Register. 90. Undergrounding Requirements. We understand that some local jurisdictions have adopted undergrounding provisions that require infrastructure to be deployed below ground based, at least in some circumstances, on the locality’s aesthetic concerns. A number of providers have complained that these types of requirements amount to an effective prohibition. 248 In addressing this issue, we first reiterate that, while undergrounding requirements may well be permissible under state law as a general matter, any local authority to impose undergrounding requirements under state law does not remove such requirements from the provisions of Section 253. In this regard, we believe that a requirement that all wireless facilities be deployed underground would amount to an effective prohibition given the propagation characteristics of wireless signals. In this sense, we agree with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when it observed that, “[i]f an ordinance required, for instance, that all facilities be underground and the plaintiff introduced evidence that, to operate, wireless facilities must be above ground, the ordinance would effectively prohibit it from providing services.”249 Further, a requirement that materially inhibits wireless service, even if it does not go so far as requiring that all wireless facilities be deployed underground, also would be considered an effective prohibition of service. Thus, the same criteria discussed above in the context of aesthetics generally would apply to state or local undergrounding requirements. 91. Minimum Spacing Requirements. Some parties complain of municipal requirements regarding the spacing of wireless installations—i.e., mandating that facilities be sited at least 100, 500, or 1,000 feet, or some other minimum distance, away from other facilities, ostensibly to avoid excessive overhead “clutter” that would be visible from public areas.250 We acknowledge that while some such requirements may violate 253(a), others may be reasonable aesthetic requirements.251 For example, under the principle that any such requirements be reasonable and publicly available in advance, it is difficult to envision any circumstances in which a municipality could reasonably promulgate a new minimum spacing requirement that, in effect, prevents a provider from replacing its preexisting facilities or collocating new equipment on a structure already in use. Such a rule change with retroactive effect would (Continued from previous page) prescribe in detail every specification to be mandated for each type of structure in each individual neighborhood. Localities need only set forth the objective standards and criteria that will be applied in a principled manner at a sufficiently clear level of detail as to enable providers to design and propose their deployments in a manner that complies with those standards. 248 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 14-15; Crown Castle Comments at 54-56; T-Mobile Comments at 38; Verizon Comments at 6-8; WIA Comments at 56; CTIA Reply at 16. But see Chicago Comments at 15; City of Claremont (CA) Comments at 1; City of Kenmore (WA) Comments at 1; City of Mukilteo (WA) Comments at 2; Florida Coalition of Local Gov’ts Comments at 6-12; Smart Communities Comments at 74. 249 County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 580, accord, BDAC Model Municipal Code at 13, § 2.3.e (providing for municipal zoning authority to allow providers to deploy small wireless facilities on existing vertical structures where available in neighborhoods with undergrounding requirements, or if no technically feasible structures exist, to place vertical structures commensurate with other structures in the area). 250 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 8 (describing requirements imposed by Buffalo Grove, Illinois); CCIA Comments at 14-15 (“These restrictions stifle technological innovation and unnecessarily burden the ability of a provider to use the best available technological to serve a particular area. For example, 5G technology will require higher band spectrum for greater network capacity, yet some millimeter wave spectrum simply cannot propagate long distances over a few thousand feet—let alone a few hundred. Therefore, a local requirement of, for example, a thousand-foot minimum separation distance between small cells would unnecessarily forestall any network provider seeking to use higher band spectrum with greater capacity when that provider needs to boost coverage in a specific area of a few hundred feet.”). See also AT&T Comments at 15; CTIA Reply at 17. 251 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

almost certainly have the effect of prohibiting service under the standards we articulate here. Therefore, such requirements should be evaluated under the same standards for aesthetic requirements as those discussed above.252 D. States and Localities Act in Their Regulatory Capacities When Authorizing and Setting Terms for Wireless Infrastructure Deployment in Public Rights of Way 92. We confirm that our interpretations today extend to state and local governments’ terms for access to public ROW that they own or control, including areas on, below, or above public roadways, highways, streets, sidewalks, or similar property, as well as their terms for use of or attachment to government-owned property within such ROW, such as new, existing and replacement light poles, traffic lights, utility poles, and similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities.253 As explained below, for two alternative and independent reasons, we disagree with state and local government commenters who assert that, in providing or denying access to government-owned structures, these governmental entities function solely as “market participants” whose rights cannot be subject to federal preemption under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7).254 93. First, this effort to differentiate between such governmental entities’ “regulatory” and “proprietary” capacities in order to insulate the latter from preemption ignores a fundamental feature of the market participant doctrine.255 As the Ninth Circuit has observed, at its core, this doctrine is “a

252 Another type of restriction that imposes substantial burdens on providers, but does not meaningfully advance any recognized public-interest objective, is an explicit or implicit quid pro quo in which a municipality makes clear that it will approve a proposed deployment only on condition that the provider supply an “in-kind” service or benefit to the municipality, such as installing a communications network dedicated to the municipality’s exclusive use. See, e.g., Comcast Comments at 9-10 Verizon Comments at 7, Crown Castle Comments at 55-56. Such requirements impose costs, but rarely, if ever, yield benefits directly related to the deployment. Additionally, where such restrictions are not cost-based, they inherently have “the effect of prohibiting” service, and thus are preempted by Section 253(a). See also BDAC Regulatory Barriers Report, Appendix E at 1 (describing “conditions imposed that are unrelated to the project for which they were seeking ROW access” as “inordinately burdensome”); BDAC Model Municipal Code at 19, § 2.5a.(v)(F) (providing that municipal zoning authority “may not require an Applicant to perform services . . . or in-kind contributions [unrelated] to the Communications Facility or Support Structure for which approval is sought”). 253 See supra paras. 50-91. Some have argued that Section 224 of the Communications Act’s exception of state- owned and cooperative-owned utilities from the definition of “utility,” “[a]s used in this section,” suggests that Congress did not intend for any other portion of the Act to apply to poles or other facilities owned by such entities. City of Mukilteo, et. al. Ex Parte Comments on the Draft Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 17-79 at 7 (filed Sept. 19, 2018). We see no basis for such a reading. Nothing in Section 253 suggests such a limited reading, nor does Section 224 indicate that other provisions of the Act do not apply. We conclude that our interpretation of effective prohibition extends to fees for all government-owned property in the ROW, including utility poles. Compare 47 U.S.C. § 224 with 47 U.S.C. § 253. We are not addressing here how our interpretations apply to access or attachments to government-owned property located outside the public ROW. 254 See, e.g., AASHTO Comments, Att. 1 (Del. DOT Comments) at 3-5; New York City Comments at 2-8; San Antonio et al. Comments at 14-15; Smart Communities Comments at 62-66; San Francisco Comments at 28-30; League of Arizona Cities et al. Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 3-9; San Antonio et al. Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421 at 14-15. See also Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3364-65, para. 96 (seeking comment on this issue). 255 The market participant doctrine establishes that, unless otherwise specified by Congress, federal statutory provisions may be interpreted as preempting or superseding state and local governments’ activities involving regulatory or public policy functions, but not their activities as “market participants” to serve their “purely proprietary interests,” analogous to similar transactions of private parties. Building & Construction Trades Council 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

presumption about congressional intent,” which “may have a different scope under different federal statutes.”256 The Supreme Court has likewise made clear that the doctrine is applicable only “[i]n the absence of any express or implied indication by Congress.”257 In contrast, where state action conflicts with express or implied federal preemption, the market participant doctrine does not apply, whether or not the state or local government attempts to impose its authority over use of public rights-of-way by permit or by lease or contract.258 Here, both Sections 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) expressly address preemption, and neither carves out an exception for proprietary conduct.259 94. Specifically, Section 253(a) expressly preempts certain state and local “legal requirements” and makes no distinction between a state or locality’s regulatory and proprietary conduct. Indeed, as the Commission has long recognized, Section 253(a)’s sweeping reference to “State [and] local statute[s] [and] regulation[s]” and “other State [and] local legal requirement[s]” demonstrates Congress’s intent “to capture a broad range of state and local actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting entities from providing telecommunications services.”260 Section 253(b) mentions “requirement[s],” a phrase that is even broader than that used in Section 253(a) but covers “universal service,” “public safety and welfare,” “continued quality of telecommunications,” and “safeguard[s for the] rights of consumers.” The subsection does not recognize a distinction between regulatory and proprietary. Section 253(c), which expressly insulates from preemption certain state and local government activities, refers in relevant part to “manag[ing] the public rights-of-way” and “requir[ing] fair and reasonable compensation,” while eliding any distinction between regulatory and proprietary action in either context. The Commission has previously observed that Section 253(c) “makes explicit a local government’s continuing authority to issue construction permits regulating how and when construction is conducted on roads and other public

(Continued from previous page) v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 507 U.S. 218, 229, 231 (1993) (Boston Harbor); see also Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations v. Gould, Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 289 (1986) (Gould). 256 See, e.g., Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Distr., 498 F.3d 1031, 1042 (9th Cir. 2007); Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Comm. College, 623 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010). 257 See Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at 231. 258 See American Trucking Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641, 650 (2013) (American Trucking). 259 At a minimum, we conclude that Congress’s language has not unambiguously pointed to such a distinction. See Letter from Tamara Preiss, Vice President, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Aug. 23, 2018) (Verizon Aug. 23, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). Furthermore, we contrast these statutes with those that do not expressly or impliedly preempt proprietary conduct. Compare, e.g., American Trucking, 569 U.S. 641 (finding that FAA Authorization Act of 1994’s provision that “State [or local government] may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property” expressly preempted the terms of a standard-form concession agreement drafted to govern the relationship between the Port of Los Angeles and any trucking company seeking to operate on the premises), and Gould, 475 U.S. at 289 (finding that NLRA preempted a state law barring state contracts with companies with disfavored labor practices because the state scheme was inconsistent with the federal scheme), with Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. at 224-32. In Boston Harbor, the Supreme Court observed that the NLRA contained no express preemption provision or implied preemption scheme and consequently held: In the absence of any express or implied indication by Congress that a State may not manage its own property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, and where analogous private conduct would be permitted, this Court will not infer such a restriction. Id. (internal citations omitted). 260 See Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21707, para. 18. We find these principles to be equally applicable to our interpretation of the meaning of “regulation[s]” referred to under Section 332(c)(7)(B) insofar as such actions impermissibly “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” Supra paras. 34-42. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

rights-of-way.”261 We conclude here that, as a general matter, “manage[ment]” of the ROW includes any conduct that bears on access to and use of those ROW, notwithstanding any attempts to characterize such conduct as proprietary.262 This reading, coupled with Section 253(c)’s narrow scope, suggests that Congress’s omission of a blanket proprietary exception to preemption was intentional, and thus, that such conduct can be preempted under Section 253(a). We therefore construe Section 253(c)’s requirements, including the requirement that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” as applying equally to charges imposed via contracts and other arrangements between a state or local government and a party engaged in wireless facility deployment.263 This interpretation is consistent with Section 253(a)’s reference to “State or local legal requirement[s],” which the Commission has consistently construed to include such agreements.264 In light of the foregoing, whatever the force of the market participant doctrine in other contexts,265 we believe the language, legislative history, and purpose of Sections 253(a) and (c) are incompatible with the application of this doctrine in this context. We observe once more that “[o]ur conclusion that Congress intended this language to be interpreted broadly is reinforced by the scope of section 253(d),” which “directs the Commission to preempt any statute, regulation, or legal requirement permitted or imposed by a state or local government if it contravenes sections 253(a) or (b). A more restrictive interpretation of the term ‘other legal requirements’ easily could permit state and local restrictions on competition to escape preemption based solely on the way in which [state] action was structured. We do not believe that Congress intended this result.”266 95. Similarly, and as discussed elsewhere,267 we interpret Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)’s references to “any request[s] for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” broadly, consistent with Congressional intent. As described below, we find that “any” is unqualifiedly broad, and that “request” encompasses anything required to secure all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. In particular, we find that Section 332(c)(7) includes authorizations relating to access to a ROW, including but not limited to the

261 See Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21728-29, para. 60, quoting H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, U.S. Congressional & Administrative News, March 1996, vol.1, Legislative History section at 41 (1996). 262 Indeed, to permit otherwise could limit the utility of ROW access for telecommunications service providers and thus conflict with the overarching preemption scheme set up by Section 253(a), for which 253(b) and 253(c) are exceptions. By construing “manage[ment]” of a ROW to include some proprietary behaviors, we mean to suggest that conduct taken in a proprietary capacity is likewise subject to 253(c)’s general limitations, including the requirement that any compensation charged in such capacity be “fair and reasonable.” 263 Cf. Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21729-30, para. 61-62 (internal citations omitted) (“Moreover, Minnesota has not shown that the compensation required for access to the right-of-way is ‘fair and reasonable.’ The compensation appears to reflect the value of the exclusivity inherent in the Agreement [which provides the developer with exclusive physical access, for at least ten years, to longitudinal rights-of-way along Minnesota's interstate freeway system] rather than fair and reasonable charges for access to the right-of-way. Nor has Minnesota shown that the Agreement provides for ‘use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis.’”) 264 Cf. Crown Castle June 7, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 17 n.83 (“Section 253(c), which carves out ROW management, would hardly be necessary if all ROW decisions were proprietary and shielded from the statute’s sweep.”). 265 We acknowledge that the Commission previously concluded that “Section 6409(a) applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators” and found that “this conclusion is consistent with judicial decisions holding that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act do not preempt ‘non regulatory decisions[.]’” See 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12964-65, paras. 237-240. To the extent necessary, we clarify here that the actions and analysis there were limited in scope given the different statutory scheme and record in that proceeding, which did not, at the time, suggest a need to “further elaborate as to how this principle should apply to any particular circumstance” (there, in connection with application of Section 6409(a)). Here, in contrast, as described herein, we find that further elucidation by the Commission is needed. 266 Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21707, para. 18 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis omitted). 267 See infra Part IV.C.1 (Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)). 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

“place[ment], construct[ion], or modif[ication]” of facilities on government-owned property, for the purpose of providing “personal wireless service.” We observe that this result, too, is consistent with Commission precedent such as the Minnesota Order, which involved a contract that provided exclusive access to a ROW. As but one example, to have limited that holding to exclude government-owned property within the ROW even if the carrier needed access to that property would have the effect of diluting or completely defeating the purpose of Section 332(c)(7).268 96. Second, and in the alternative, even if Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7) were to permit leeway for states and localities acting in their proprietary role, the examples in the record would be excepted because they involve states and localities fulfilling regulatory objectives.269 In the proprietary context, “a State acts as a ‘market participant with no interest in setting policy.’”270 We contrast state and local governments’ purely proprietary actions with states and localities acting with respect to managing or controlling access to property within public ROW, or to decisions about where facilities that will provide personal wireless service to the public may be sited. As several commenters point out, courts have recognized that states and localities “hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public” and “manage public ROW in their regulatory capacities.”271 These decisions could be based on a number of regulatory objectives, such as aesthetics or public safety and welfare, some of which, as we note elsewhere, would fall within the preemption scheme envisioned by Congress. In these situations, the state or locality’s role seems to us to be indistinguishable from its function and objectives as a regulator.272 To

268 See also infra para. 134-36 and cases cited therein. Precedent that may appear to reach a different result can be distinguished in that it resolves disputes arising under Section 332 and/or 253(a) without analyzing the scope of Section 253(c). Furthermore, those situations did not involve government-owned property or structures within a public ROW. See, e.g., Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404, 420-21 (2d Cir. 2002) (declining to find preemption under Section 332 applicable to terms of a school rooftop lease); Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, 738 F.3d 192, 195-96, 200-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining to find preemption under Section 332 applicable to restrictions on lease of parkland). 269 In this regard, also relevant to our interpretations here is courts’ admonition that government activities that are characterized as transactions but in reality are “tantamount to regulation” are subject to preemption, Gould, 475 U.S. at 289, and that government action disguised as private action may not be relied on as a pretext to advance regulatory objectives. See, e.g., Coastal Communications Service v. City of New York, 658 F. Supp. 2d 425, 441-42 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that a restriction on advertising on newly-installed payphones was subject to section 253(a) where the advertising was a material factor in the provider’s ability to provide the payphone service itself). 270 See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 70 (2008). 271 See Verizon Comments at 26-28 & n.85; T-Mobile Comments at 50 & n.210 and cases cited therein. 272 Indeed, the Commission has long recognized that, in enacting Sections 253(c) and 332(c)(7), Congress affirmatively protected the ability of state and local governments to carry out their responsibilities for maintaining, managing, and regulating the use of ROW and structures therein for the benefit of the public. TCI Cablevision Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21441, para. 103 (1997) (“We recognize that section 253(c) preserves the authority of state and local governments to manage public rights-of-way. Local governments must be allowed to perform the range of vital tasks necessary to preserve the physical integrity of streets and highways, to control the orderly flow of vehicles and pedestrians, to manage gas, water, cable (both electric and cable television), and telephone facilities that crisscross the streets and public rights-of-way.”); Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, para. 142 (same); Classic Telephone, Inc. Petition for Preemption, Declaratory Ruling, and Injunctive Relief, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 13082, 13103, para. 39 (1996) (same). We find these situations to be distinguishable from those where a state or locality might be engaged in a discrete, bona fide transaction involving sales or purchases of services that do not otherwise violate the law or interfere with a preemption scheme. Compare, e.g., Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc., v. City of Bedford, 180 F.3d 686, 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to find that the FAA Authorization Act of 1994, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, preempted an ordinance and contract specifications that were designed only to procure services that a municipality itself needed, not to regulate the conduct of others), with NextG Networks of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2884308 (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2004) (crediting allegations that a city’s actions, such as issuing a request for proposal and implementing a general franchising scheme, were not of a purely proprietary nature, but rather, were taken in pursuit of a regulatory objective or policy). This action could include, for example, procurement of services for the state or locality, or a 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

the extent that there is some distinction, the temptation to blend the two roles for purposes of insulating conduct from federal preemption cannot be underestimated in light of the overarching statutory objective that telecommunications service and personal wireless services be deployed without material impediments. 97. Our interpretation of both provisions finds ample support in the record of this proceeding. Specifically, commenters explain that public ROW and government-owned structures within such ROW are frequently relied upon to supply services for the benefit of the public, and are often the best-situated locations for the deployment of wireless facilities.273 However, the record is also replete with examples of states and localities refusing to allow access to such ROW or structures, or imposing onerous terms and conditions for such access.274 These examples extend far beyond governments’ treatment of single structures;275 indeed, in some cases it has been suggested that states or localities are using their proprietary roles to effectuate a general municipal policy disfavoring wireless deployment in public ROW.276 We believe that Section 253(c) is properly construed to suggest that Congress did not intend to permit states and localities to rely on their ownership of property within the ROW as a pretext to advance regulatory objectives that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of covered services, and thus that such conduct is preempted.277 Our interpretations here are intended to facilitate the implementation of the scheme Congress intended and to provide greater regulatory certainty to states, municipalities, and regulated parties about what conduct is preempted under Section 253(a). Should factual questions arise about whether a state or locality is engaged in such behavior, Section 253(d) affords state and local governments and private parties an avenue for specific preemption challenges.

(Continued from previous page) contract for employment services between a state or locality and one of its employees. We do not intend to reach these scenarios with our interpretations today. 273 See, e.g., Verizon Aug. 23, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5. 274 See supra para. 25. 275 Cf. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404. 276 See NextG Networks of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 2004 WL 2884308; Coastal Communications Service v. City of New York, 658 F. Supp. 2d at 441-42. 277 We contrast this instance to others in which we either declined to act or responded to requests for action with respect to specific disputes. See, e.g., 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12964-65, paras. 237- 240; Continental Airlines Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (OTARD) Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13201, 13220, para. 43 (2006) (observing, in the context of a different statutory and regulatory scheme, that “[g]iven that the Commission intended to preempt restrictions [regarding restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna] in private lease agreements, however, Massport would be preempted even if it is acting in a private capacity with regard to its lease agreement with Continental.”); Sandwich Isles Section 253 Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5883, para. 14 (rejecting argument that argument that Section 253(a) is inapplicable where it would affect the state’s ability to “deal[] with its real estate interests . . . as it sees fit,” such as by granting access to “rights-of-way over land that it owns); Minnesota Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 21706-08, paras. 17-19; cf. Amigo.Net Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 10964, 10967 (WCB 2002) (Section 253 did not apply to carrier’s provision of network capacity to government entities exclusively for such entities’ internal use); T-Mobile West Corp. v. Crow, 2009 WL 5128562 (D. Ariz., Dec. 17, 2009) (Section 332(c)(7) did not apply to contract for deployment of wireless facilities and services for use on state university campus). We clarify here that such prior instances are not to be construed as a concession that Congress did not make preemption available, or that the Commission lacked the authority to support parties’ attempts to avail themselves of relief offered under preemption schemes, when confronted with instances in which a state or locality is relying on its proprietary role to skirt federal regulatory reach. Indeed, these instances demonstrate the opposite— that preemption is available to effectuate Congressional intent—and merely illustrate application of this principle. Also, we do not find it necessary to await specific disputes in the form of Section 253(d) petitions to offer these interpretations. In the alternative and as an independent means to support the interpretations here, we clarify that we intend for our views to guide how preemption should apply in fact-specific scenarios. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

E. Responses to Challenges to Our Interpretive Authority and Other Arguments 98. We reject claims that we lack authority to issue authoritative interpretations of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) in this Declaratory Ruling. As explained above, we act here pursuant to our broad authority to interpret key provisions of the Communications Act, consistent with our exercise of that interpretive authority in the past.278 In this instance, we find that issuing a Declaratory Ruling is necessary to remove what the record reveals is substantial uncertainty and to reduce the number and complexity of legal controversies regarding certain fee and non-fee state and local legal requirements in connection with Small Wireless Facility infrastructure. We thus exercise our authority in this Declaratory Ruling to interpret Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) and explain how those provisions apply in the specific scenarios at issue here.279 99. Nothing in Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) purports to limit the exercise of our general interpretive authority.280 Congress’s inclusion of preemption provisions in Section 253(d) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) does not limit the Commission’s ability pursuant to other sections of the Act to construe and provide its authoritative interpretation as to the meaning of those provisions.281 Any preemption under Section 253 and/or Section 332(c)(7)(B) that subsequently occurs will proceed in accordance with the enforcement mechanisms available in each context. But whatever enforcement mechanisms may be available to preempt specific state and local requirements, nothing in Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7) prevents the Commission from declaring that a category of state or local laws is inconsistent with Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) because it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the relevant covered service.282

278 See, e.g., Moratoria Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, paras. 161-68; 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14001, para. 23. 279 Targeted interpretations of the statute like those we adopt here fall far short of a “federal regulatory program dictating the scope and policies involved in local land use” that some commenters fear. League of Minnesota Cities Comments at 9. 280 We also reject claims that Section 601(c)(1) of the 1996 Act constrains our interpretation of these provisions. See, e.g., NARUC Reply at 3; Smart Communities Reply at 33, 35-36. That provision guards against implied preemption, while Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B) both expressly restrict state and local activities. See, e.g., Texas PUC Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3485-86, para. 51. Courts also have read that provision narrowly. See, e.g., In re FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015, 1120 (10th Cir. 2014); Qwest Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 684 F.3d 721, 730-31 (8th Cir. 2012); Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 131 (3d Cir. 2010). Although the Ninth Circuit in County of San Diego asserted that there is a presumption that express preemption provisions should be read narrowly, and that the presumption would apply to the interpretation of Section 253(a), County of San Diego, 543 F.3d at 548, the cited precedent applies that presumption where “the State regulates in an area where there is no history of significant federal presence.” Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492, 496 (9th Cir. 2005). Whatever the applicability of such a presumption more generally, there is a substantial history of federal involvement here, particularly insofar as interstate telecommunications services and wireless services are implicated. See, e.g., Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003); Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 391 F.2d 486, 490–92 (2d Cir. 1968); 47 U.S.C., Title III. 281 See, e.g., California PUC Comments at 11; Verizon Comments at 31-33; CTIA Reply at 22-23; WIA Reply at 16- 18. We thus reject claims to the contrary. See, e.g., City of New York Comments at 8; Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 41-44; City of New York Reply at 1-2; NATOA Reply at 9-10; Smart Communities Reply at 34. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit upheld just such an exercise of authority with respect to the interpretation of Section 332(c)(7) in the past. See generally City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 249-54. While some commenters assert that the questions addressed by the Commission in the order underlying the Fifth Circuit’s City of Arlington decision are somehow more straightforward than our interpretations here, they do not meaningfully explain why that is the case, instead seemingly contemplating that the Commission would address a wider, more general range of circumstances than we actually do here. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 44-45. 282 Consequently, we reject claims that relying on our general interpretative authority to interpret Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) would render any provisions of the Act mere surplusage, see, e.g., Smart Communities Reply at 34-35, or would somehow “usurp the role of the judiciary.” Washington State Cities Reply at 14. We likewise 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

100. Although some commenters contend in general terms that differences in judicial approaches to Section 253 are limited and thus there is little need for Commission guidance,283 the interpretations we offer in this Declaratory Ruling are intended to help address certain specific scenarios that have caused significant uncertainty and legal controversy, irrespective of the degree to which this uncertainty has been reflected in court decisions. We also reject claims that a Supreme Court brief joined by the Commission demonstrates that there is no need for the interpretations in this Declaratory Ruling.284 To the contrary, that brief observed that some potential interpretations of certain court decisions “would create a serious conflict with the Commission’s understanding of Section 253(a), and [] would undermine the federal competition policies that the provision seeks to advance.”285 The brief also noted that, if warranted, “the Commission can restore uniformity by issuing authoritative rulings on the application of Section 253(a) to particular types of state and local requirements.”286 Rather than cutting against the need for, or desirability of, the interpretations we offer in this Declaratory Ruling, the brief instead presaged them.287

(Continued from previous page) reject other arguments insofar as they purport to treat Section 253(d)’s provision for preemption as more specific than, or otherwise controlling over, other Communications Act provisions enabling the Commission to authoritatively interpret the Act. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 43. To the contrary, “[t]he specific controls but only within its self-described scope.” Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power, 534 U.S. 327, 336 (2002). In addition, concerns that the Commission might interpret Section 253(c) in a manner that would render it a nullity or in a manner divorced from relevant context—things we do not do here—bear on the reasonableness of a given interpretation and not on the existence of interpretive authority in the first instance, as some contend. See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments, Exh. A at 43-44. 283 See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 26-27; Fairfax County Comments at 20; Smart Communities Comments at 61. Some commenters assert that there are reasonable, material reliance interests arising from past court interpretations that would counsel against our interpretations in this order because “localities and providers have adjusted to the tests within their circuits” and “reflected those standards in local law.” Smart Communities Comments, WT Docket No. 16-141 at 67 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) cited in City of Austin Comments at 2 n.3. Arguments such as these, however, merely underscore the regulatory patchwork that inhibits the development of a robust nationwide telecommunications and private wireless service as envisioned by Congress. By offering interpretations of the relevant statutes here, we intend, thereby, to eliminate potential regional regulatory disparities flowing from differing interpretations of those provisions. See, e.g., WIA Reply at 19-20. 284 See City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 27 (citing Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Level 3 Commc’ns v. City of St. Louis, Nos. 08-626, 08-759 at 9, 11 (filed May 28, 2009) (Amicus Brief)). 285 Amicus Brief at 12-13. The brief also identified other specific areas of concern with those cases. See, e.g., id. at 13 (“The court appears to have accorded inordinate significance to Level 3’s inability to ‘state with specificity what additional services it might have provided’ if it were not required to pay St. Louis’s license fee. That specific failure of proof—which the court of appeals seems to have regarded as emblematic of broader evidentiary deficiencies in Level 3’s case—is not central to a proper Section 253(a) inquiry.” (citation omitted)); id. at 14 (“Portions of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, moreover, could be read to suggest that a Section 253 plaintiff must show effective preclusion—rather than simply material interference—in order to prevail. As discussed above, limiting the preemptive reach of Section 253(a) to legal requirements that completely preclude entry would frustrate the policy of open competition that Section 253 was intended to promote.” (citation omitted)). 286 Id. at 18. 287 Contrary to some claims, the need for these clarifications also is not undercut by prior determinations that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans. See, e.g., Letter from Nancy Werner, General Counsel, NATOA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed June 21, 2018) (NATOA June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter) (citing Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 33 FCC Rcd 1660, 1707-08, para. 94 (2018) (2018 Broadband Deployment Report)). These commenters do not explain why the distinct standard for evaluating deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, see 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1663-76, paras. 9-39, should bear on the application of Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7). Further, as the Commission itself observed, “[a] finding that deployment of advanced 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

101. Our interpretations of Sections 253 and Section 332(c)(7) are likewise not at odds with the Tenth Amendment and constitutional precedent, as some commenters contend.288 In particular, our interpretations do not directly “compel the states to administer federal regulatory programs or pass legislation.”289 The outcome of violations of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act are no more than a consequence of “the limits Congress already imposed on State and local governments” through its enactment of Section 332(c)(7).290 102. We also reject the suggestion that the limits Section 253 places on state and local ROW fees and management will unconstitutionally interfere with the relationship between a state and its political subdivisions.291 As relevant to our interpretations here, it is not clear, at first blush, that such concerns would be implicated.292 Because state and local legal requirements can be written and structured in myriad ways, and challenges to such state or local activities could be framed in broad or narrow terms, we decline to resolve such questions here, divorced from any specific context. IV. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER 103. In this Third Report and Order, we address the application of shot clocks to state and local review of wireless infrastructure deployments. We do so by taking action in three main areas. First, we adopt a new set of shot clocks tailored to support the deployment Small Wireless Facilities. Second, we adopt a specific remedy that applies to violations of these new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks, which we expect will operate to significantly reduce the need for litigation over missed shot clocks. Third, we clarify a number of issues that are relevant to all of the FCC’s shot clocks, including the types of authorizations subject to these time periods.

(Continued from previous page) telecommunications capability is reasonable and timely in no way suggests that we should let up in our efforts to foster greater deployment.” Id. at 1664, para. 13. 288 See, e.g., City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 28; Smart Communities Comments at 77-78; Smart Communities Reply at 48-50; NATOA June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3. 289 Montgomery County, 811 F.3d at 128; see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Printz); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (New York). These provisions preempting state law thus do not “compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,” Printz, 521 U.S. at 900, or “dictate what a state . . . may or may not do.” Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1478 (2018) (Murphy). 290 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14002, para. 25. The Communications Act establishes its own framework for oversight of wireless facility deployment—one that is largely deregulatory, see, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30, at para. 63; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1480-81, para. 182 (1994)—and it is reasonable to expect state and local governments electing to act in that area to do so only in a manner consistent with the Act’s framework. See, e.g., Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1470-71, 1480. Thus, the application of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B) is clearly distinguishable from the statute the Supreme Court struck down in Murphy, which did not involve a preemption scheme but nonetheless prohibited state authorization of sports gambling. Id. at 1481. The application here is also clearly distinguishable from the statute in Printz, which mandated states to run background checks on handgun purchases, Printz, 521 U.S. at 904–05, and the statute in New York, which required states to enact state laws that provide for the disposal of radioactive waste or else take title to such waste. New York, 505 U.S. at 151–52. 291 See, e.g., City of New York Comments at 9-10; Smart Communities Comments at 78.; see also, e.g., Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 134 (2004) (identifying Tenth Amendment issues with the application of Section 253 where that application would implicate “state or local governmental self-regulation (or regulation of political inferiors)”). 292 For example, where a state or local law or other legal requirement simply sets forth particular fees to be paid, or where the legal requirement at issue is simply an exercise of discretion that governing law grants the state or local government, it is not clear that preemption would unconstitutionally interfere with the relationship between a state and its political subdivisions. 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

A. New Shot Clocks for Small Wireless Facility Deployments 104. In 2009, the Commission concluded that we should use shot clocks to define a presumptive “reasonable period of time” beyond which state or local inaction on wireless infrastructure siting applications would constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332.293 We adopted a 90-day clock for reviewing collocation applications and a 150-day clock for reviewing siting applications other than collocations. The record here suggests that our two existing Section 332 shot clocks have increased the efficiency of deploying wireless infrastructure. Many localities already process wireless siting applications in less time than required by those shot clocks, and a number of states have enacted laws requiring that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less.294 Some siting agencies acknowledge that they have worked to gain efficiencies in processing siting applications and welcome the addition of new shot clocks tailored to the deployment of small scale facilities.295 Given siting agencies’ increased experience with existing shot clocks, the greater need for rapid siting of Small Wireless Facilities nationwide, and the lower burden siting of these facilities places on siting agencies in many cases, we take this opportunity to update our approach to speed the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities.296 1. Two New Section 332 Shot Clocks for Deployment of Small Wireless Facilities 105. In this section, using authority confirmed in City of Arlington, we adopt two new Section 332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities—60 days for review of an application for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities using a preexisting structure and 90 days for review of an application for attachment of Small Wireless Facilities using a new structure. These new Section 332 shot clocks carefully balance the well-established authority that states and local authorities have over review of wireless siting applications with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7)(ii) to exercise that authority “within a reasonable period of time… taking into account the nature and scope of the request.”297 Further, our decision is consistent with the BDAC’s Model Code for Municipalities’ recommended timeframes, which utilize this same 60-day and 90-day framework for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and new structures298 and are similar to shot clocks enacted in state level small cell bills and the real world

293 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 13994. 294 See infra para. 106. 295 Chicago Comments at 7 (“[T]he City has worked to achieve efficient processing times even for applications where no federal deadline exists.”); New Orleans Comments at 3 (“City supports the concept proposed by the Commission . . . to establish . . . more narrowly defined classes of deployments, with distinct reasonable times frames for action within each class.”). 296 See LaWana Mayfield July 31, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“However, getting this infrastructure out in a timely manner can be a challenge that involves considerable time and financial resources. The solution is to streamline relevant policies—allowing more modern rules for modern infrastructure.”); Letter from John Richard C. King, House of Representatives, South Carolina, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Aug. 27, 2018) (“A patchwork system of town-to-town, state-to-state rules slows the approval of small cell installations and delays the deployment of 5G. We need a national framework with guardrails to streamline the path forward to our wireless future”); Letter from Andy Thompson, State Representative, Ohio House District 95, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Aug. 24, 2018) (“In order for 5G to arrive as quickly and as effectively as possible, relevant infrastructure regulations must be streamlined. It makes very little sense for rules designed for 100-foot cell towers to govern the path to deployment for modern equipment called small cells that can fit into a pizza box.”); Letter from Todd Nash, Wallowa County Board of Commissioners, Oregon, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 10, 2018) (FCC should streamline regulatory processes by, for example, tightening the deadlines for states and localities to approve new network facilities). 297 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(ii). 298 The BDAC Model Municipal Code recommended, for certain types of facilities, shot clocks of 60 days for collocations and 90 days for new constructions on applications for siting Small Wireless Facilities. BDAC Model 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

experience of many municipalities which further supports the reasonableness of our approach.299 Our actions will modernize the framework for wireless facility siting by taking into consideration that states and localities should be able to address the siting of Small Wireless Facilities in a more expedited review period than needed for larger facilities.300 106. We find compelling reasons to establish a new presumptively reasonable Section 332 shot clock of 60 days for collocations of Small Wireless Facilities on existing structures. The record demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of these collocations.301 Notwithstanding the implementation of the current shot clocks, more streamlined procedures are both reasonable and necessary to provide greater predictability for siting applications nationwide for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. The two current Section 332 shot clocks do not reflect the evolution of the application review process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more quickly than was the case when the existing Section 332 shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Since 2009, localities have gained significant experience processing wireless siting applications.302 Indeed, many localities already process wireless siting applications in less than the required time303 and several

(Continued from previous page) Municipal Code at §§ 2.2, 2.3, 3.2a(i)(B). Our approach utilizes the same timeframes set forth in the Model Municipal Code, and we disagree with comments that it is inconsistent with or ignores the work of the BDAC. GMA September 17 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5. 299 For instance, while the City of Chicago opposes the shot clocks adopted here, we note that the City has also stated that, “[d]espite th[e] complex review process, involving many utilities and other entities, CDOT on average processed small cell applications last year in 55 days.” Letter from Edward N. Siskel, Corp. Counsel, Dept. of Law, City of Chicago, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 19, 2018). 300 Just like the shot clocks originally established in 2009—later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court—the shot clocks framework in this Third Report and Order are no more than an interpretation of “the limits Congress already imposed on State and local governments” through its enactment of Section 332(c)(7). 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14002, para. 25. See also City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 259. As explained in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the shot clocks derived from Section 332(c)(7) “will not preempt State or local governments from reviewing applications for personal wireless service facilities placement, construction, or modification,” and they “will continue to decide the outcome of personal wireless service facility siting applications pursuant to the authority Congress reserved to them in Section 332(c)(7)(A).” 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14002, para. 25. 301 CTIA Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421, at 33 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); Letter from Juan Huizar, City Manager of the City of Pleasanton, TX, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed June 4, 2018) (describing the firsthand benefit of small cells and noting that communications infrastructure is a critical component of local growth); Letter from Sara Blackhurst, President, Action 22, to the Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed May 18, 2018) (Action 22 Ex Parte )(“While we understand the need for relevant federal rules and protections appropriate for larger wireless infrastructure, we feel these same rules are not well-suited for smaller wireless facilities and risk slowing deployment in communities that need connectivity now.”); Letter from Maurita Coley Flippin, President and CEO, MMTC, to the Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (encourages the Commission to remove unnecessary barriers such as unreasonable delays so deployment can proceed expeditiously); Fred A. Lamphere Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (It is critical that the Commission continue to remove barriers to building new wireless infrastructure such as by setting reasonable timelines to review applications). 302 T-Mobile Comments at 20; Crown Castle Reply at 5 (noting that the adoption of similar time frames by several states for small cell siting review confirms their reasonableness, and the Commission should apply these deadlines on a nationwide basis). 303 Alaska Dep’t of Natural Resources Comments at 2 (“[W]e are currently meeting or exceeding the proposed timeframe of the ‘Shot Clock.’”); see also CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (“Eleven states—Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia—recently adopted small cell legislation that includes 45-day or 60-day shot clocks for small cell collocations.”); Jason R. Saine Sept. 14, 2018 Ex Parte Letter. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

jurisdictions require by law that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less.304 With the passage of time, siting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications.305 These facts demonstrate that a shorter, 60-day shot clock for processing collocation applications for Small Wireless Facilities is reasonable.306 107. As we found in 2009, collocation applications are generally easier to process than new construction because the community impact is likely to be smaller.307 In particular, the addition of an antenna to an existing tower or other structure is unlikely to have a significant visual impact on the community. 308 The size of Small Wireless Facilities poses little or no risk of adverse effects on the environment or historic preservation.309 Indeed, many jurisdictions do not require public hearings for approval of such attachments, underscoring their belief that such attachments do not implicate complex issues requiring a more searching review.310 108. Further, we find no reason to believe that applying a 60-day time frame for Small Wireless Facility collocations under Section 332 creates confusion with collocations that fall within the scope of “eligible facilities requests” under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, which are also subject to a 60-day review.311 The type of facilities at issue here are distinctly different and the definition of a Small Wireless Facility is clear. Further, siting authorities are required to process Section 6409 applications involving the swap out of certain equipment in 60 days, and we see no meaningful difference in processing these applications than processing Section 332 collocation applications in 60 days. There is

304 North Carolina requires its local governments to decide collocation applications within 45 days of submission of a complete application. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.53(a2). The same 45-day shot clock applies to certain collocations in Florida. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(13)(a)(1), (d)(1). In New Hampshire, applications for collocation or modification of wireless facilities generally have to be decided within 45 days (subject to some exceptions under certain circumstances) or the application is deemed approved. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10. Wisconsin requires local governments to decide within 45 days of receiving complete applications for collocation on existing support structure that does not involve substantial modification, or the application will be deemed approved, unless the local government and applicant agree to an extension. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 66.0404(3)(c). Local governments in Indiana have 45 days to decide complete collocation applications, unless an extension is allowed under the statute. Ind. Code Ann. § 8-1-32.3-22. Minnesota requires any zoning application, including both collocation and non- collocation applications, to be processed in 60 days. Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a). By not requiring hearings, collocation applications in these states can be processed in a timely manner. 305 Chicago Comments at 7 (“[T]he City has worked to achieve efficient processing times even for applications where no federal deadline exists.”); New Orleans Comments at 3 (“City supports the concept proposed by the Commission . . . to establish . . . more narrowly defined classes of deployments, with distinct reasonable times frames for action within each class.”); Action 22 Ex Parte at 2 (“While we understand the need for relevant federal rules and protections appropriate for larger wireless infrastructure, we feel these same rules are not well-suited for smaller wireless facilities and risk slowing deployment in communities that need connectivity now.”). 306 CCA Comments at 11-14; T-Mobile Comments at 20; Incompas Reply at 9; Sprint Comments at 45-47 (noting that Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Virginia all have passed small cell legislation that requires small cell application attachments to be acted upon in 60 days); T-Mobile Comments at 18 (arguing that the Commission should accelerate the Section 332 shot clocks for all sites to 60 days for collocations, including small cells). 307 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para. 40. 308 TIA Comments at 4. 309 Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at para. 42 (citing Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR Part 1, Appx. B, § VI (Collocation NPA)); see also 47 CFR § 1.1306(c)(1) (excluding certain wireless facilities from NEPA review). 310 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para. 46. 311 DESHPO Comments at 2 (“opposes the application of separate time limits for review of facility deployments not covered by the Spectrum Act, as it would lead to confusion within the process for all parties involved (Applicants/Carrier, Consultants, SHPO)”). 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

no reason to apply different time periods (60 vs. 90 days) to what is essentially the same review: modification of an existing structure to accommodate new equipment. 312 Finally, adopting a 60-day shot clock will encourage service providers to collocate rather than opting to build new siting structures which has numerous advantages.313 109. Some municipalities argue that smaller facilities are neither objectively “small” nor less obtrusive than larger facilities.314 Others contend that shorter shot clocks for a broad category of “smaller” facilities are too restrictive, 315 and would fail to take into account the varied and unique climate, historic architecture, infrastructure, and volume of siting applications that municipalities face.316 We take those considerations into account by clearly defining the category of “Small Wireless Facility” in our rules and allowing siting agencies to rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the shot clocks based upon the actual circumstances they face. For similar reasons, we disagree that establishing shorter shot clocks for smaller facilities would impair states’ and localities’ authority to regulate local rights of way.317 110. While some commenters argue that additional shot clock classifications would make the siting process needlessly more complex without any proven benefits,318 any additional administrative burden from increasing the number of Section 332 shot clocks from two to four is outweighed by the likely significant benefit of regulatory certainty and the resulting streamlined deployment process.319 We

312 CTIA Aug. 30, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 6. 313 Letter from Richard Rossi, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, American Tower, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 3 (filed Aug. 10, 2018) (“The reason to encourage collocation is straightforward, it is faster, cheaper, more environmentally sound, and less disruptive than building new structures.”). 314 League of Az Cities and Towns Comments at 13, 29 (arguing that many small cells or micro cells can be taller and more visually intrusive than macro cells). 315 See, e.g., Letter from Geoffrey C. Beckwith, Executive Director & CEO, Mass. Municipal. Assoc., Boston, MA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, (filed Sept. 11, 2018) (Geoffrey C. Beckwith Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Mike Posey Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter; Letter from John A. Barbish, Mayor, City of Wickliffe, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 (filed Sept. 13, 2018); Letter from Pauline Russo Cutter, Mayor, City of San Leandro, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79 (filed Sept. 12, 2018); Letter from Ed Waage, Mayor, City of Pismo Beach, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Scott A. Hancock, Executive Director, MML, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Leon Towarnicki, City Manager, Martinsville, VA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Thomas Aujero Small, Mayor, City of Culver City, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 1 (filed Sept. 18, 2018). 316 Philadelphia Comments at 4-5 (arguing that shorter shot clocks should not be implemented because “cities are already resource constrained and any further attempt to further limit the current time periods for review of applications will seriously and adversely affect public safety as well as diminish the proper role, under our federalist system, of state and local governments in regulating local rights of way”); Smart Communities Comments, Docket 16-421, at 13 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (included by reference by Austin’s Comments); Alaska Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2. See, e.g., TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (current shot clocks are appropriate and that further shortening these shot clocks is not warranted); Arlington, TX Comments at 2; Letter from William Tomko, Mayor of Chagrin Falls, OH, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 1-2 (filed Sept. 17, 2018); Nina Beety Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter; Georgia Municipal Association Sept. 17, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 4. 317 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 26-27, 29-35; Cities of San Antonio et. al Comments at 8; Philadelphia Comments at 4. 318 T-Mobile Comments at 22; Florida Coalition Comments at 9 (creating new shot clocks would result in “too many ‘shot clocks’ and both the industry and local governments would be confused as to which shot clock applied to what application”). 319 While several parties proposed additional shot clock categories, we believe that the any benefit from a closer tailoring of categories to circumstances is not outweighed by the administrative burden on siting authorities and 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

also reject the assertion that revising the period of time to review siting decisions would amount to a nationwide land use code for wireless siting.320 Our approach is consistent with the Model Code for Municipalities that recognizes that the shot clocks that we are adopting for the review of Small Wireless Facility deployment applications correctly balance the needs of local siting agencies and wireless service providers.321 Our balance of the relevant considerations is informed by our experience with the previously adopted shot clocks, the record in this proceeding, and our predictive judgment about the effectiveness of actions taken here to promote the provision of personal wireless services. 111. For similar reasons as set forth above, we also find it reasonable to establish a new 90 day Section 332 shot clock for new construction of Small Wireless Facilities. Ninety days is a presumptively reasonable period of time for localities to review such siting applications. Small Wireless Facilities have far less visual and other impact than the facilities we considered in 2009, and should accordingly require less time to review.322 Indeed, some state and local governments have already adopted 60-day maximum reasonable periods of time for review of all small cell siting applications, and, even in the absence of such maximum requirements, several are already reviewing and approving small-cell siting applications within 60 days or less after filing.323 Numerous industry commenters advocated a 90-day shot clock for all non- collocation deployments. 324 Based on this record, we find it reasonable to conclude that review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure warrants more review time than a mere collocation, but less than the construction of a macro tower.325 For the reasons explained below, we

(Continued from previous page) providers to manage these categories. See TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (stating that it “could support a shorter review period for new structures less than fifty (50) feet tall, or where structures are located within or adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way (but not transportation rights-of-way) with existing utility structures taller than the proposed telecommunications structure”); Georgia Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2 (stating that time frames based on the zoning area are reasonable). 320 Cities of San Antonio et. al Comments, Exh. A at 17-18. In the same vein, the Florida Department of Transportation contends that “[p]ermit review times should comply with state statutes,” especially if the industry insists on being treated similarly as other utilities. AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 13 (Florida Dept. of Trans. Comments); see also Alaska Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2; TX Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2 (explaining that variations in topography, weather, government interests, and state and local political structure counsel against standardized nationwide shot clocks). The Maryland Department of Transportation is concerned about the shortened shot clocks proposed because they would conflict with a Maryland law that requires a 90-day comment period in considering wireless siting applications and because certain applications can be complex and necessitate longer review periods. AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 40 (MD Dept. of Trans. Comments). 321 BDAC Model Municipal Code at § 3.2a(i)(B). 322 CTIA Comments, Attach. 1 at 38. 323 T-Mobile Comments at 19-20 (stating that some states already have adopted more expedited time frames to lower siting barriers and speed deployment, which demonstrates the reasonableness of the proposed 60-day and 90-day revised shot clocks); Incompas Reply at 9 (stating that there is no basis for differing time-periods for similarly- situated small cell installation requests, and the lack of harmonization could discourage the use of a more efficient infrastructure); CCA Comments at 14 n.52 (citing CCA Streamlining Reply at 7-8 that in Houston, Texas, the review process for small cell deployments “usually takes 2 weeks, but no more than 30 days to process and complete the site review. In Kenton County, Kentucky, the maximum time permitted to act upon new facility siting requests is 60 days. Louisville, Kentucky generally processes small cell siting requests within 30 days, and Matthews, North Carolina generally processes wireless siting applications within 10 days”). 324 CTIA Reply at 3 (stating that the Commission should shorten the shot clocks to 90 days for new facilities); CTIA Comments at 11-12 (asserting that the existing 150-day review period for new wireless sites should be shortened to 90 days); Crown Castle Comments at 29 (stating that a 90-day shot clock for new facilities is appropriate for macro cells and small cells alike, to the extent such applications require review under Section 332 at all); ExteNet Comments at 8 (asserting that the Commission should accelerate the shot clock for all other non-collocation applications, including those for new DNS poles, from 150 days to 90 days); WIA Reply at 2. 325 CCUA argues that the new shot clocks would force siting authorities to deny applications when they find that applications are incomplete. Letter from Kenneth S. Fellman, Counsel, CCUA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 also specify today a provision that will initially reset these two new shot clocks in the event that a locality receives a materially incomplete application. 112. Finally, we note that our 60- and 90-day approach is similar to that in pending legislation that has bipartisan congressional support, and is consistent with the Model Code for Municipalities. Specifically, the draft STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, would apply a 60-day shot clock to collocation of small personal wireless service facilities and a 90-day shot clock to any other action relating to small personal wireless service facilities.326 Further, the Model Code for Municipalities recommended by the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee also utilizes this same 60-day and 90-day framework for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and new structures.327 2. Batched Applications for Small Wireless Facilities 113. Given the way in which Small Wireless Facilities are likely to be deployed, in large numbers as part of a system meant to cover a particular area, we anticipate that some applicants will submit “batched” applications: multiple separate applications filed at the same time, each for one or more sites or a single application covering multiple sites.328 In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the Commission asked whether batched applications should be subject to either longer or shorter shot clocks than would apply if each component of the batch were submitted separately.329 Industry commenters contend that the shot clock applicable to a batch or a class of applications should be no longer than that applicable to an individual application of the same class.330 On the other hand, several commenters, contend that batched applications have often been proposed in historic districts and historic buildings (areas that require a more complex review process), and given the complexities associated with reviews of that type, they urge the Commission not to apply shorter shot clocks to batched applications.331 Some localities also argue that a single, national shot clock for batched applications would fail to account for unique local circumstances.332 114. We see no reason why the shot clocks for batched applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities should be longer than those that apply to individual applications because, in many cases, the batching of such applications has advantages in terms of administrative efficiency that could actually

(Continued from previous page) FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2018) (Kenneth S. Fellman Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter). We disagree that this would be the outcome in such an instance because, as explained below, siting authorities can toll the shot clocks upon a finding of incompleteness. 326 STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S. 3157, 115th Cong. (2018). 327 BDAC Model Municipal Code at § 3.2a(i)(B), 328 We define either scenario as “batching” for the purpose of our discussion here. 329 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 18; see also Mobilitie PN, 31 FCC Rcd at 13371. 330 See, e.g., Extenet Comments at 10-11 (“The Commission should not adopt a longer shot clock for batches of multiple DNS applications.”); Sprint Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 43-44 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); CCA Comments at 16 (“The FCC also should ensure that batch applications are not saddled with a longer shot clock than those afforded to individual siting applications . . . .”); Verizon Comments at 42 (“The same 60-day shot clock should apply to applications proposing multiple facilities—so called ‘batch applications.’”); Crown Castle Comments at 30 (“Crown Castle also does not support altering the deadline for ‘batches’ of requests.”); T-Mobile Comments at 22- 23 (“[A]n application that batches together similar numbers of small cells of like character and in proximity to one another should also be able to be reviewed within the same time frame . . . .”); CTIA Comments at 17 (“There is, however, no need for the Commission to establish different shot clocks for batch processing of similar facilities . . . .”). 331 San Antonio Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 47 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments). 332 Cities of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket 16- 421, at 47 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments). 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 make review easier.333 Our decision flows from our current Section 332 shot clock policy. Under our two existing Section 332 shot clocks, if an applicant files multiple siting applications on the same day for the same type of facilities, each application is subject to the same number of review days by the siting agency.334 These multiple siting applications are equivalent to a batched application and therefore the shot clocks for batching should follow the same rules as if the applications were filed separately. Accordingly, when applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities are filed in batches, the shot clock that applies to the batch is the same one that would apply had the applicant submitted individual applications. Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new construction of Small Wireless Facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock will apply, to ensure that the siting authority has adequate time to review the new construction sites. 115. We recognize the concerns raised by parties arguing for a longer time period for at least some batched applications, but conclude that a separate rule is not necessary to address these concerns. Under our approach, in extraordinary cases, a siting authority, as discussed below, can rebut the presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes legitimate overload on the siting authority’s resources. 335 Thus, contrary to some localities’ arguments,336 our approach provides for a certain degree of flexibility to account for exceptional circumstances. In addition, consistent with, and for the same reasons as our conclusion below that Section 332 does not permit states and localities to prohibit applicants from requesting multiple types of approvals simultaneously,337 we find that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) similarly does not allow states and localities to refuse to accept batches of applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities. B. New Remedy for Violations of the Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks 116. In adopting these new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facility applications, we also provide an additional remedy that we expect will substantially reduce the likelihood that applicants will need to pursue additional and costly relief in court at the expiration of those time periods. 117. At the outset, and for the reasons the Commission articulated when it adopted the 2009 shot clocks, we determine that the failure of a state or local government to issue a decision on a Small Wireless Facility siting application within the presumptively reasonable time periods above will constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Therefore, a provider is, at a minimum, entitled to the same process and remedies available for a failure to act within the new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks as they have been under the FCC’s 2009 shot clocks. But we also add an additional remedy for our new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks. 118. State or local inaction by the end of the Small Wireless Facility shot clock will function not only as a Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) failure to act but also amount to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Accordingly, we would expect the state or local government to issue all necessary permits without further delay. In cases where such action is not taken, we assume, for the reasons discussed below, that the applicant

333 See, e.g., Sprint Comments, Docket No. 16-421, at 43-44 (filed Mar. 8, 2017); Verizon Comments at 42; CTIA Comments at 17. 334 WIA Comments at 27 (“Merely bundling similar sites into a single batched application should not provide a locality with more time to review a single batched application than to process the same applications if submitted individually.”). 335 See infra paras. 117, 119. See Letter from Nina Beety, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17- 79 (filed Sept. 17, 2018); Letter from Dave Ruller, City Manager, City of Kent, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018). 336 Cities of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. A at 17, 19-20; see also Smart Communities Comments, Docket 16- 421, at 47 (filed Mar. 8, 2017) (referenced by Austin’s Comments). 337 See infra para. 144. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 would have a straightforward case for obtaining expedited relief in court.338 119. As discussed in the Declaratory Ruling, a regulation under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) constitutes an effective prohibition if it materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.339 Missing shot clock deadlines would thus presumptively have the effect of unlawfully prohibiting service in that such failure to act can be expected to materially limit or inhibit the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.340 Thus, when a siting authority misses the applicable shot clock deadline, the applicant may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), in addition to a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), as discussed above. The siting authority then will have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of effective prohibition by demonstrating that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services. 120. Given the seriousness of failure to act within a reasonable period of time, we expect, as noted above, siting authorities to issue without any further delay all necessary authorizations when notified by the applicant that they have missed the shot clock deadline, absent extraordinary circumstances. Where the siting authority nevertheless fails to issue all necessary authorizations and litigation is commenced based on violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), we expect that applicants and other aggrieved parties will likely pursue equitable judicial remedies.341 Given the relatively low burden on state and local authorities of simply acting—one way or the other—within the Small Wireless Facility shot clocks, we think that applicants would have a relatively low hurdle to clear in establishing a right to expedited judicial relief. Indeed, for violations of Section 332(c)(7)(B), courts commonly have based the decision whether to award preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on several factors. As courts have concluded, preliminary and permanent injunctions fulfill Congressional intent that action on applications be timely and that courts consider violations of Section 332(c)(7)(B) on an expedited basis.342 In addition, courts have observed that “[a]lthough Congress in the Telecommunications Act left intact some of local zoning boards’ authority under state law,” they should not be owed deference on issues relating to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), meaning that “in the majority of cases the proper remedy for a zoning board decision that violates the Act will be an order. . . instructing the board to authorize construction.”343 Such relief also is supported where few or no issues remain to be decided, and those that remain can be addressed by a court.344 121. Consistent with those sensible considerations reflected in prior precedent, we expect that

338 Where we discuss litigation here, we refer, for convenience, to “the applicant” or the like, since that is normally the party that pursues such litigation. But we reiterate that under the Act, “[a]ny person adversely affected by” the siting authority’s failure to act could pursue such litigation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 339 See supra paras. 34-42. 340 Id. 341 See, e.g., 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12978, para. 284. 342 See, e.g., Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30, 41 (1st Cir. 2014) (addressing claimed violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Act); Nat’l Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2002) (Nat’l Tower) (same); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 497 (2d Cir. 1999) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Act); AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1169, 1175-76 (D.N.M. 2015) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); Bell Atl. Mobile of Rochester v. Town of Irondequoit, 848 F. Supp. 2d 391, 403 (W.D.N.Y. 2012) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)); New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Manchester, 2014 WL 79932, *8 (D.N.H. Feb. 28, 2014) (addressing violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). 343 See, e.g., Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 21-22; AT&T Mobility, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 1176. 344 See, e.g., Green Mountain Realty, 750 F.3d at 41-42; Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 24-25; Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d at 497; Bell Atl. Mobile, 848 F. Supp. 2d at 403; New Cingular Wireless PCS, 2014 WL 79932, *8. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 courts will typically find expedited and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief warranted for violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act when addressing the circumstances discussed in this Order. Prior findings that preliminary and permanent injunctive relief best advances Congress’s intent in assuring speedy resolution of issues encompassed by Section 332(c)(7)(B) appear equally true in the case of deployments of Small Wireless Facilities covered by our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) in this Third Report and Order.345 Although some courts, in deciding whether an injunction is the appropriate form of relief, have considered whether a siting authority’s delay resulted from bad faith or involved other abusive conduct,346 we do not read the trend in court precedent overall to treat such considerations as more than relevant (as opposed to indispensable) to an injunction. We believe that this approach is sensible because guarding against barriers to the deployment of personal wireless facilities not only advances the goal of Section 332(c)(7)(B) but also policies set out elsewhere in the Communications Act and 1996 Act, as the Commission recently has recognized in the case of Small Wireless Facilities.347 This is so whether or not these barriers stem from bad faith. Nor do we anticipate that there would be unresolved issues implicating the siting authority’s expertise and therefore requiring remand in most instances. 122. In light of the more detailed interpretations that we adopt here regarding reasonable time frames for siting authority action on specific categories of requests—including guidance regarding circumstances in which longer time frames nonetheless can be reasonable—we expect that litigation generally will involve issues that can be resolved entirely by the relevant court. Thus, as the Commission has stated in the past, “in the case of a failure to act within the reasonable time frames set forth in our rules, and absent some compelling need for additional time to review the application, we believe that it would also be appropriate for the courts to treat such circumstances as significant factors weighing in favor of [injunctive] relief.”348 We therefore caution those involved in potential future disputes in this area against placing too much weight on the Commission’s recognition that a siting authority’s failure to act within the associated timeline might not always result in a preliminary or permanent injunction under the Section 332(c)(7)(B) framework while placing too little weight on the Commission’s recognition that policies established by federal communications laws are advanced by streamlining the process for deploying wireless facilities. 123. We anticipate that the traditional requirements for awarding preliminary or permanent injunctive relief would likely be satisfied in most cases and in most jurisdictions where a violation of 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) is found. Typically, courts require movants to establish the following elements of preliminary or permanent injunctive relief: (1) actual success on the merits for permanent injunctive relief and likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary injunctive relief, (2) continuing irreparable injury, (3) the absence of an adequate remedy at law, (4) the injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and (5) award of injunctive relief would not be adverse to the public interest. 349 Actual success on the merits would be

345 See Green Mountain Realty Corp., 750 F.3d at 41 (reasoning that remand to the siting authority “would not be in accordance with the text or spirit of the Telecommunications Act); Cellular Tel. Co, 166 F.3d at 497 (noting “that injunctive relief best serves the TCA’s stated goal of expediting resolution” of cases brought under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v)). 346 See, e.g., Nat’l Tower, 297 F.3d at 23; Up State Tower Co. v. Town of Kiantone, 718 Fed. Appx. 29, 32 (2d Cir. 2017) (Summary Order). 347 See, e.g., Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at para. 62; Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3332, para. 5. 348 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12978, para, 284. 349 Pub. Serv. Tel. Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1273 (N.D. Ga.), aff’d, 404 F. App’x 439 (11th Cir. 2010); Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 906 F.2d 934, 941 (3d Cir. 1990); Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir. 1999); Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir. 2007); Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998); K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 914–15 (1st Cir. 1989). 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 demonstrated when an applicant prevails in its failure-to-act or effective prohibition case; likelihood of success would be demonstrated because, as discussed, missing the shot clocks, depending on the type of deployment, presumptively prohibits the provision of personal wireless services and/or violates Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)’s requirement to act within a reasonable period of time.350 Continuing irreparable injury likely would be found because remand to the siting authority “would serve no useful purpose” and would further delay the applicant’s ability to provide personal wireless service to the public in the area where deployment is proposed, as some courts have previously determined.351 There also would be no adequate remedy at law because applicants “have a federal statutory right to participate in a local [personal wireless services] market free from municipally-imposed barriers to entry,” and money damages cannot directly substitute for this right.352 The public interest and the balance of harms also would likely favor the award of a preliminary or permanent injunction because the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) is to encourage the rapid deployment of personal wireless facilities while preserving, within bounds, the authority of states and localities to regulate the deployment of such facilities, and the public would benefit if further delays in the deployment of such facilities—which a remand would certainly cause—are prevented.353 We also expect that the harm to the siting authority would be minimal because the only right of which it would be deprived by a preliminary or permanent injunction is the right to act on the siting application beyond a reasonable time period,354 a right that “is not legally cognizable, because under [Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)], the [siting authority] has no right to exercise this power.”355 Thus, in the context of Small Wireless Facilities, we expect that the most appropriate remedy in typical cases involving a violation of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) is the award of injunctive relief in the form of an order to issue all necessary authorizations.356 124. Our approach advances Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)’s provision that certain siting disputes, including those involving a siting authority’s failure to act, shall be heard and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction on an expedited basis. The framework reflected in this Order will provide the courts with substantive guiding principles in adjudicating Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) cases, but it will not dictate the result or the remedy appropriate for any particular case; the determination of those issues will remain within the courts’ domain.357 This accords with the Fifth Circuit’s recognition in City of Arlington

(Continued from previous page) Note that the standards for permanent injunctive relief differ in some respects among the circuits and the states. For example, “most courts do not consider the public interest element in deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction, though the Third Circuit has held otherwise.” Klay, 376 F.3d at 1097. Courts in the Second Circuit consider only irreparable harm and success on the merits. Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Vill. of Tarrytown Planning Bd., 302 F. Supp. 2d 205, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The Third and Fifth Circuits have precedents holding that irreparable harm is not an essential element of a permanent injunction. See Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 873 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1990); Lewis v. S. S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1123–24 (5th Cir. 1976). For the sake of completeness, our analysis discusses all of the elements that have been used in decided cases. 350 See New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 640. 351 See Vill. of Tarrytown Planning Bd., 302 F. Supp. 2d at 225–26 (quoting Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst, N.Y., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1201 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)); see Upstate Cellular Network v. City of Auburn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 309, 318 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). 352 New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 641. 353 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234. 354 Contra 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 355 New Jersey Payphone, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 641. 356 See Cellular Tel. Co, 166 F.3d at 496. While our discussion here focused on cases that apply the permanent injunction standard, we have the same view regarding relief under the preliminary injunction standard when a locality fails to act within the applicable shot clock periods. See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (discussing the standard for preliminary injunctive relief). 357 Several commenters support this position, urging the Commission to reaffirm that adversely affected applicants must seek redress from the courts. See, e.g., League of Ar Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 14-21; Philadelphia 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

that the Act could be read “as establishing a framework in which a wireless service provider must seek a remedy for a state or local government’s unreasonable delay in ruling on a wireless siting application in a court of competent jurisdiction while simultaneously allowing the FCC to issue an interpretation of § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) that would guide courts’ determinations of disputes under that provision.”358 125. The guidance provided here should reduce the need for, and complexity of, case-by-case litigation and reduce the likelihood of vastly different timing across various jurisdictions for the same type of deployment.359 This clarification, along with the other actions we take in this Third Report and Order, should streamline the courts’ decision-making process and reduce the possibility of inconsistent rulings. Consequently, we believe that our approach helps facilitate courts’ ability to “hear and decide such [lawsuits] on an expedited basis,” as the statute requires.360 126. Reducing the likelihood of litigation and expediting litigation where it cannot be avoided should significantly reduce the costs associated with wireless infrastructure deployment. For instance, WIA states that if one of its members were to challenge every shot clock violation it has encountered, it would be mired in lawsuits with forty-six localities.361 And this issue is likely to be compounded given the expected densification of wireless networks. Estimates indicate that deployments of small cells could reach up to 150,000 in 2018 and nearly 800,000 by 2026.362 If, for example, 30 percent (based on T- Mobile’s experience363) of these expected deployments are not acted upon within the applicable shot clock

(Continued from previous page) Comments at 2; Philadelphia Reply at 4-6; City of San Antonio et al. Comments, Exh. B at 14-15; San Francisco Comments at 16-17; Colorado Munis Comments at 7; CWA Reply at 5; Fairfax County Comments at 12-15; AASHTO Comments at 20-21, 23 (ID Dept. of Trans. Comments); NATOA Comments, Attach. 3 at 53-55; NLC Comments at 3-4; Smart Communities Comments at 39-43. Our interpretation thus preserves a meaningful role for courts under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), contrary to the concern some commenters expressed with particular focus on alternative proposals we do not adopt, such as a deemed granted remedy. See, e.g., Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 6-7; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 14-23; Philadelphia Comments at 2; Baltimore Reply at 11; City of San Antonio et al. Reply at 2; San Francisco Reply at 6; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 2-3. In addition, our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) does not result in a regime in which the Commission could be seen as implicitly issuing local land use permits, a concern that states and localities raised regarding an absolute deemed granted remedy, because applicants are still required to petition a court for relief, which may include an injunction directing siting authorities to grant the application. See Alexandria Comments at 2; Baltimore Reply at 10; Philadelphia Reply at 8; Smart Cities Coal Comments at ii, 4, 39. 358 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 250. 359 The likelihood of non-uniform or inconsistent rulings on what time frames are reasonable or what circumstances could rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the shot clock periods stems from the intrinsic ambiguity of the phrase “reasonable period of time,” which makes it susceptible of varying constructions. See City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 255 (noting “that the phrase ‘a reasonable period of time,’ as it is used in § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), is inherently ambiguous”); Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Because ‘just,’ ‘unjust,’ ‘reasonable,’ and ‘unreasonable’ are ambiguous statutory terms, this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them.”). See also Lightower Comments at 3 (“The lack of consistent guidance regarding statutory interpretation is creating uncertainty at the state and local level, with many local jurisdictions seeming to simply make it up as they go. Differences in the federal courts are only exacerbating the patchwork of interpretations at the state and local level.”). 360 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 361 WIA Comments at 16. 362 Comment Sought on Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies; Mobilitie, LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13360, 13363-64 (2016) (citing S&P Global Market Intelligence, John Fletcher, Small Cell and Tower Projections through 2026, SNL Kagan Wireless Investor (Sept. 27, 2016)). 363 T-Mobile Comments at 8. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

period, that would translate to 45,000 violations in 2018 and 240,000 violations in 2026.364 These sheer numbers would render it practically impossible to commence Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) cases for all violations, and litigation costs for such cases likely would be prohibitive and could virtually bar providers from deploying wireless facilities.365 127. Our updated interpretation of Section 332(c)(7) for Small Wireless Facilities effectively balances the interest of wireless service providers to have siting applications granted in a timely and streamlined manner366 and the interest of localities to protect public safety and welfare and preserve their authority over the permitting process.367 Our specialized deployment categories, in conjunction with the acknowledgement that in rare instances, it may legitimately take longer to act, recognize that the siting process is complex and handled in many different ways under various states’ and localities’ long- established codes. Further, our approach tempers localities’ concerns about the inflexibility of the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI’s deemed granted proposal because the new remedy we adopt here accounts for the breadth of potentially unforeseen circumstances that individual localities may face and the possibility that additional review time may be needed in truly exceptional circumstances.368 We further find that our interpretive framework will not be unduly burdensome on localities because a number of states have already adopted even more stringent deemed granted remedies.369 128. At the same time, there may be merit in the argument made by some commenters that the FCC has the authority to adopt a deemed granted remedy.370 Nonetheless, we do not find it necessary to decide that issue today, as we are confident that the rules and interpretations adopted here will provide substantial relief, effectively avert unnecessary litigation, allow for expeditious resolution of siting applications, and strike the appropriate balance between relevant policy considerations and statutory

364 These numbers would escalate under WIA’s estimate that 70 percent of small cell deployment applications exceed the applicable shot clock. WIA Comments at 7. 365 See CTIA Comments at 9 (explaining that, “[p]articularly for small cells, the expense of litigation can rarely be justified); WIA Comments at 16 (quoting and discussing Lightower’s Comments in 2016 Streamlining Public Notice); T-Mobile Comment, Attach. A at 8. 366 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 26; CCA Comments at 7, 9, 11-12; CCA Reply at 5-6, 8; Cityscape Consultants Comments at 1; CompTIA Comments at 3; CIC Comments at 17-18; Crown Castle Comments at 23-28; Crown Castle Reply at 3; CTIA Comments at 7-9, Attach. 1 at 5, 39-43, Attach. 2 at 3, 23-24; GCI Comments at 5-9; Lightower Comments at 7, 18-19; Samsung Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 13, 16, Attach. A at 25; WIA Comments at 15-17. 367 See, e.g., Arizona Munis Comments at 23; Arizona Munis Reply at 8-9; Baltimore Reply at 10; Lansing Comments at 2; Philadelphia Reply at 9-12; Torrance Comments at 1-2; CPUC Comments at 14; CWA Reply at 5; Minnesota Munis Comments at 9; but see CTIA Reply at 9. 368 See, e.g., Chicago Comments at 2 (contending that wireless facilities siting entails fact-specific scenarios); AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 40 (MD Dept. of Trans. SHA Comments) (describing the complexity of reviewing proposed deployments on rights-of-way); AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 51 (Wyoming DOT Comments); Baltimore Reply at 11; Philadelphia Comments at 4; Alexandria Comments at 6; Mukilteo Comments at 1; Alaska Dept. of Trans. Comments at 2; Alaska SHPO Reply at 1. 369 See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(13)(d)(3.b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9-594(C) (3); 53 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 11702.4; Cal. Gov't Code § 65964.1; Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2232; Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2316.4; Va. Code Ann. § 56-484.29; Va. Code Ann. § 56-484.28; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.987; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 66.0404; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-2019(h)(3); Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, § 1609; Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.7A(3)(c)(2); Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.4(4)(5); Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.5; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 125.3514. See also CCA Reply at 9. 370 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 10-11; T-Mobile Comments at 15-18, Verizon Comments at 37, 39-41, WIA Comments at 17-20. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

objectives371 guiding our analysis.372 129. We expect that our decision here will result in localities addressing applications within the applicable shot clocks in a far greater number of cases. Moreover, we expect that the limited instances in which a locality does not issue a decision within that time period will result in an increase in cases where the locality then issues all needed permits. In what we expect would then be only a few cases where litigation commences, our decision makes clear the burden that localities would need to clear in those circumstances. 373 Our updated interpretation of Section 332 for Small Wireless Facilities will help courts to decide failure-to-act cases expeditiously and avoid delays in reaching final dispositions.374 Placing this burden on the siting authority should address the concerns raised by supporters of a deemed granted remedy—that filing suit in court to resolve a siting dispute is burdensome and expensive on applicants, the judicial system, and citizens—because our interpretations should expedite the courts’

371 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234 (noting that the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) is to balance the competing interests to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in land use and zoning regulation and the rapid development of new telecommunications technologies). 372 See supra paras. 119-20 (explaining how the remedy strikes the proper balance between competing interests). Because our approach to shot clocks involves our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and the consequences that flow from that—and does not rely on Section 253 of the Act—we need not, and thus do not, resolve disputes about the potential use of Section 253 in this specific context, such as whether it could serve as authority for a deemed granted or similar remedy. See, e.g., San Francisco Comments at 9-10; CPUC Comments at 10; Smart Communities Comments at 4-11, 21; Smart Communities Reply at 78-79; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 4; Alexandria Comments at 5; Irvine Comments at 5; Minnesota Cities Comments at 11-13; Philadelphia Reply at 2, 7; Fairfax County Comments at 17; Greenlining Reply at 4; NRUC Reply at 3-5; NATOA June 21, 2018 Ex Parte Letter. To the extent that commenters raise arguments regarding the proper interpretation of “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” under Section 253 or the scope of Section 253, these issues are discussed in the Declaratory Ruling, see supra paras. 34-42. 373 See App Association Comments at 9; CCI Comments at 6-8; Conterra Comments at 14-17; ExteNet Comments at 13; T-Mobile Comments at 17; Quintillion Reply at 6; Verizon Comments at 8-18; WIA Comments at 9-10. WIA contends that adoption of a deemed granted remedy is needed because various courts faced with shot clock claims have failed to provide meaningful remedies, citing as an example a case in which the court held that the town failed to act within the shot clock period but then declined to issue an injunction directing the siting agency to grant the application. WIA Comments at 16-17. However, a number of cases involving violations of the “reasonable period of time” requirement of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)—decided either before or after the promulgation of the Commission’s Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) shot clocks—have concluded with an award of injunctive relief. See, e.g., Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 318 (concluding that the siting authority’s failure to act within the 150-day shot clock was unreasonable and awarding a permanent injunction in favor of the applicant); Am. Towers, Inc. v. Wilson County, No. 3:10-CV-1196, 2014 WL 28953, at *13–14 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2014) (finding that the county failed to act within a reasonable period of time, as required under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), and granting an injunction directing the county to approve the applications and issue all necessary authorizations for the applicant to build and operate the proposed tower); Cincinnati Bell Wireless, LLC v. Brown County, Ohio, No. 1:04-CV-733, 2005 WL 1629824, at *4–5 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2005) (finding that the county failed to act within a reasonable period of time under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and awarding injunctive relief). But see Up State Tower Co. v. Town of Kiantone, 718 Fed. Appx. 29 (2d Cir. 2017) (declining to reverse district court’s refusal to issue injunction compelling immediate grant of application). Courts have also held “that injunctive relief best serves the TCA’s stated goal of expediting resolution of” cases brought under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d at 497; Brehmer v. Planning Bd. of Town of Wellfleet, 238 F.3d 117, 121 (1st Cir. 2001). Under these circumstances, we do not agree with WIA that courts have failed to provide meaningful remedies to such an extent as would require the adoption of a deemed granted remedy. 374 Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Paramus, N.J., 21 F. Supp. 3d at 383, 387 (more than four-and-a-half years for Sprint to prevail in court), aff'd, 606 F. App’x 669 (3d Cir. 2015); Vill. of Corrales, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (nineteen months from complaint to grant of summary judgment); Orange County–Poughkeepsie Ltd. P’ship v. Town of E. Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d 274, 293 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d sub nom., Orange County–County Poughkeepsie Ltd. P’ship v. Town of E. Fishkill, 632 F. App’x 1 (2d Cir. 2015) (seventeen months from complaint to grant of summary judgment). 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 decision-making process. 130. We find that the more specific deployment categories and shot clocks, which presumptively represent the reasonable period within which to act, will prevent the outcome proponents of a deemed granted remedy seek to avoid: that siting agencies would be forced to reject applications because they would be unable to review the applications within the prescribed shot clock period.375 Because the more specific deployment categories and shot clocks inherently account for the nature and scope of a variety of deployment applications, our new approach should ensure that siting agencies have adequate time to process and decide applications and will minimize the risk that localities will fail to act within the established shot clock periods. Further, in cases where a siting authority misses the deadline, the opportunity to demonstrate exceptional circumstances provides an effective and flexible way for siting agencies to justify their inaction if genuinely warranted. Our overall framework, therefore, should prevent situations in which a siting authority would feel compelled to summarily deny an application instead of evaluating its merits within the applicable shot clock period.376 We also note that if the approach we take in this Order proves insufficient in addressing the issues it is intended to resolve, we may again consider adopting a deemed granted remedy in the future. 131. Some commenters also recommend that the Commission issue a list of “Best Practices” or “Recommended Practices.”377 The joint comments filed by NATOA and other government associations suggest the “development of an informal dispute resolution process to remove parties from an adversarial relationship to a partnership process designed to bring about the best result for all involved” and the development of “a mediation program which could help facilitate negotiations for deployments for parties who seem to have reached a point of intractability.”378 Although we do not at this time adopt these proposals, we note that the steps taken in this order are intended to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. For example, as explained below, mutual agreement between the parties will toll the running of the shot clock period, thereby allowing parties to resolve disagreements in a collaborative, instead of an adversarial, setting.379 C. Clarification of Issues Related to All Section 332 Shot Clocks 1. Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) 132. As indicated above, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires state and local governments to act “within a reasonable period of time” on “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities.”380 Neither the 2009 Declaratory Ruling nor the 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order addressed the specific types of authorizations subject to this requirement. Industry commenters contend that the shot clocks should apply to all authorizations a locality may require, and to all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including license or franchise agreements to access ROW, building permits, public notices and meetings, lease negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed for deployment.381 Local siting authorities, on the other hand, argue that a broad application of Section 332 will harm public safety and welfare by not

375 Baltimore Reply at 12; Mukilteo Comments at 1; Cities of San Antonio et al. Reply at 10; Washington Munis Comments, Attach. 1 at 8-9; but see CTIA Reply at 9. 376 We also note that a summary denial of a deployment application is not permitted under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), which requires the siting authority to base denials on “substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 377 KS Rep. Sloan Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 10. 378 NATOA et al. Comments at 16-17. 379 See infra paras. 145-46. 380 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 381 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 15; CTIA Reply at 10; Mobilitie Comments at 6-7; WIA Comments at 24; WIA Reply at 13; T-Mobile Comments at 21-22; CCA Reply at 9; Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 3. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

giving them enough time to evaluate whether a proposed deployment endangers the public.382 They assert that building and encroachment permits should not be subsumed within the shot clocks because these permits incorporate essential health and safety reviews.383 After carefully considering these arguments, we find that “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. This interpretation finds support in the record and is consistent with the courts’ interpretation of this provision and the text and purpose of the Act. 133. The starting point for statutory interpretation is the text of the statute,384 and here, the statute is written broadly, applying to “any” request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities. The expansive modifier “any” typically has been interpreted to mean “one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,” unless Congress “add[ed] any language limiting the breadth of that word.”385 The title of Section 332(c)(7) (“Preservation of local zoning authority”) does not restrict the applicability of this section to zoning permits in light of the clear text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).386 The text encompasses not only requests for authorization to place personal wireless service facilities, e.g., zoning requests, but also requests for authorization to construct or modify personal wireless service facilities. These activities typically require more than just zoning permits. For example, in many instances, localities require building permits, road closure permits, and the like to make construction or modification possible.387 Accordingly, the fact that the title standing alone could be read

382 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22. See also Arlington County, Sept. 18 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 (asserting that it is infeasible to have the shot clock encompass all steps related the small cell siting process because there is no single application to get ROW access, public notice, lease negotiations, road closures, etc.; because these are separate processes involving different departments; and because the timeline in some instances will depend on the applicant, or the required information may interrelate in a manner that makes doing them all at once infeasible); Letter from Robert McBain, Mayor, Piedmont, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2018). 383 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22. 384 Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 11233 (1996); 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, Report, 18 FCC Rcd 4726, 4731–32 (2003); Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) (“A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.”); Communications Assistance for Law Enf’t Act & Broadband Access & Servs., First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd. 14989, 14992–93, para. 9 (2005) (interpreting an ambiguous statute by considering the “structure and history of the relevant provisions, including Congress’s stated purposes” in order to “faithfully implement[] Congress’s intent”); Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 2007) (using legislative history “to identify Congress’s clear intent”); Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854, 858 (1st Cir. 1998) (same). 385 United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976)); HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 131 (2002). 386 See Bhd. of R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528–29 (1947) (“[H]eadings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text.” ). Our conclusion is also consistent with our interpretation that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) apply to fees for all applications related to a Small Wireless Facility. See supra para. 50. 387 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22 (stating that deployment of personal wireless facilities generally requires excavation and building permits); San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22 (describing the permitting process in San Francisco, the layers of multi-departmental review involved, and the required authorizations before certain personal wireless facilities can be constructed); Smart Cities Coal. Comments at 33-34 (describing several authorizations necessary to deploy personal wireless facilities depending on the location, e.g., public rights-of-way and other public properties, of the proposed site and the size of the proposed facility). 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 to limit Section 332(c)(7) to zoning decisions does not overcome the specific language of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), which explicitly applies to a variety of authorizations.388 134. The purpose of the statute also supports a broad interpretation. As noted above, the Supreme Court has stated that the 1996 Act was enacted “to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies” by, inter alia, reducing “the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”389 A narrow reading of the scope of Section 332 would frustrate that purpose by allowing local governments to erect impediments to the deployment of personal wireless services facilities by using or creating other forms of authorizations outside of the scope of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).390 This is especially true in jurisdictions requiring multi-departmental siting review or multiple authorizations. 391 135. In addition, our interpretation remains faithful to the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) to balance Congress’s competing desires to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in regulating land use and zoning, while encouraging the rapid development of new telecommunications technologies.392 Under our interpretation, states and localities retain their authority over personal wireless facilities deployment. At the same time, deployment will be kept on track by ensuring that the entire approval process necessary for deployment is completed within a reasonable period of time, as defined by the shot clocks addressed in this Third Report and Order. 136. A number of courts have either explicitly or implicitly adopted the same view, that all necessary permits are subject to Section 332. For example, in Cox Communications PCS, L.P. v. San Marcos, the court considered an excavation permit application as falling within the parameters of Section 332.393 In USCOC of Greater Missouri, LLC v. County of Franklin, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that “[t]he issuance of the requisite building permits” for the construction of a personal wireless services facility arises under Section 332(c)(7).394 In Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Township, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order compelling the township to issue a building permit for the

388 See Bhd. of R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947). If the title of Section 332(c)(7) were to control the interpretation of the text, it would render superfluous the provision of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) that applies to “authorization to . . . construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” and give effect only to the provision that applies to “authorization to place . . . personal wireless service facilities.” This result would “flout[] the rule that ‘a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous.’” Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242, 2248 (2014) (quoting Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009)). 389 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. at 115 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 390 For example, if we were to interpret Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) to cover only zoning permits, states and localities could delay their consideration of other permits (e.g., building, electrical, road closure or other permits) to thwart the proposed deployment. 391 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22; San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22; Smart Communities Comments at 33-34; CTIA Comments at 15 (stating that some jurisdictions “impose multiple, sequential stages of review”); WIA Comments at 24 (noting that “[m]any jurisdictions grant the application within the shot clock period only to stall on issuing the building permit”); Verizon Comments at 6 (stating that “[a] large Southwestern city requires applicants to obtain separate and sequential approvals from three different governmental bodies before it will consider issuing a temporary license agreement to access city rights-of-way”); Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 3 (noting that “after a land-use permit or attachment permit is received, many localities still require electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approval, and other types of reviews that can extend the time required for final permission well beyond just the initial approval.”). 392 City of Arlington, 668 F.3d at 234. 393 Cox Commc’ns PCS, L.P. v. San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Cal. 2002). 394 USCOC of Greater Mo., LLC v. County of Franklin, 636 F.3d 927, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2011). 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

construction of a wireless facility after finding that the township had violated Section 332(c)(7).395 In Upstate Cellular Network v. Auburn, the court directed the city to approve the application, including site plan approval by the planning board, granting a variance by the zoning authority, and “any other municipal approval or permission required by the City of Auburn and its boards or officers, including but not limited to, a building permit.”396 And in PI Telecom Infrastructure V, LLC v. Georgetown–Scott County Planning Commission, the court ordered that the locality grant “any and all permits necessary for the construction of the proposed wireless facility.”397 Our interpretation is also consistent with judicial precedents involving challenges under Section 332(c)(7)(B) to denials by a wide variety of governmental entities, many of which involved variances,398 special use/conditional use permits,399 land disturbing activity and excavation permits,400 building permits,401 and a state department of education permit to install an antenna at a high school.402 Notably, a lot of cases have involved local agencies that are separate and distinct from the local zoning authority,403 confirming that Section 332(c)(7)(B) is not limited in application to decisions of zoning authorities. Our interpretation also reflects the examples in the record where providers are required to obtain other types of authorizations besides zoning permits before they can “place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities.”404 137. We reject the argument that this interpretation of Section 332 will harm the public because it would “mean that building and safety officials would have potentially only a few days to

395 Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester TP., 504 F.3d 370, 395-96 (3d Cir. 2007). 396 Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 319. 397 PI Telecom Infrastructure V, LLC v. Georgetown–Scott County Planning Commission, 234 F. Supp. 3d 856, 872 (E.D. Ky. 2017). Accord T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Lowell, Civil Action No. 11–11551–NMG, 2012 WL 6681890, *6-7, *11 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2012) (directing the zoning board “to issue all permits and approvals necessary for the construction of the plaintiffs’ proposed telecommunications facility”); New Par v. Franklin County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, No. 2:09–cv–1048, 2010 WL 3603645, *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2010) (enjoining the zoning board to “grant the application and issue all permits required for the construction of the” proposed wireless facility). 398 See, e.g., New Par v. City of Saginaw, 161 F. Supp. 2d 759, 760 (E.D. Mich. 2001), aff’d, 301 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2002) 399 See, e.g., Virginia Metronet, Inc. v. Bd. of Sup’rs of James City County, 984 F. Supp. 966, 968 (E.D. Va. 1998); Cellular Tel. Co., 166 F.3d at 491; T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County, 546 F.3d 1299, 1303 (10th Cir. 2008); City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 989; Helcher, 595 F.3d at 713-14; AT&T Wireless Servs. of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2003); PrimeCo Pers. Commc’ns L.P. v. City of Mequon, 242 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d, 352 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2003); Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2002). 400 See, e.g., Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Properties, LLC v. City of Chattanooga, 403 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 2005); Cox Commc’ns PCS, L.P. v. San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Cal. 2002). 401 See, e.g., Upstate Cellular Network, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 319; Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp., 504 F.3d 370, 395-96 (3rd Cir. 2007). 402 Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Mills, 65 F. Supp. 2d 148, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d, 283 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2002). 403 See, e.g., Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Props., LLC v. City of Chattanooga, 403 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 2005) (city public works department); Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 720 (9th Cir. 2009) (city public works director, city planning commission, and city council); Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Mills, 65 F. Supp. 2d at 150 (New York State Department of Education). 404 See, e.g., Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22 (stating that deployment of personal wireless facilities generally requires excavation and building permits); San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22 (describing the permitting process in San Francisco, the layers of multi-departmental review involved, and the required authorizations before certain personal wireless facilities can be constructed); Smart Communities Comments at 33- 34 (describing several authorizations necessary to deploy personal wireless facilities depending on the location, e.g., public rights-of-way and other public properties, of the proposed site and the size of the proposed facility). 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

evaluate whether a proposed deployment endangers the public.”405 Building and safety officials will be subject to the same applicable shot clock as all other siting authorities involved in processing the siting application, with the amount of time allowed varying in the rare case where officials are unable to meet the shot clock because of exceptional circumstances. 2. Codification of Section 332 Shot Clocks 138. In addition to establishing two new Section 332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities, we take this opportunity to codify our two existing Section 332 shot clocks for siting applications that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found that 90 days is a reasonable time frame for processing collocation applications and 150 days is a reasonable time frame to process applications other than collocations.406 Since these Section 332 shot clocks were adopted as part of a declaratory ruling, they were not codified in our rules. In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether to modify these shot clocks.407 We find no need to modify them here and will continue to use these shot clocks for processing Section 332 siting applications that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities. 408 We do, though, codify these two existing shot clocks in our rules alongside the two newly-adopted shot clocks so that all interested parties can readily find the shot clock requirements in one place.409 139. While some commenters argue for a 60-day shot clock for all collocation categories,410 we conclude that we should retain the existing 90-day shot clock for collocations not involving Small Wireless Facilities. Collocations that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities include deployments of

405 League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Reply at 21-22. 406 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012-013, paras. 45, 48. 407 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3332-33, 3334, 3337-38, paras. 6, 9, 17-19. 408 Chicago Comments at 2 (supporting maintaining existing shot clocks); Bellevue et al. Comments at 13-14 (supporting maintaining existing shot clocks). 409 We also adopt a non-substantive modification to our existing rules. We redesignate the rule adopted in 2014 to codify the Commission’s implementation of the 2012 Spectrum Act, formerly designated as section 1.40001, as section 1.6100, and we move the text of that rule from Part 1, Subpart CC, to the same Subpart as the new rules promulgated in this Third Report and Order (Part 1, Subpart U). This recognizes that both sets of requirements pertain to “State and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities” (the caption of new Subpart U). The reference in paragraph (a) of that preexisting rule to 47 U.S.C. § 1455 has been consolidated with new rule section 1.6001 to reflect that all rules in Subpart U, collectively, implement both § 332(c)(7) and § 1455. With those non-substantive exceptions, the text of the 2014 rule has not been changed in any way. Contrary to the suggestion submitted by the Washington Joint Counties, see Letter from W. Scott Snyder et al., Counsel for the Washington Cities of Bremerton, Mountlake Terrace, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Lake Stevens, Richland, and Mukilteo, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 6-7 (filed June 19, 2018), this change is not substantive and does not require advance notice. We find that “we have good cause to reorganize and renumber our rules in this fashion without expressly seeking comment on this change, and we conclude that public comment is unnecessary because no substantive changes are being made. Moreover, the delay engendered by a round of comment would be contrary to the public interest.” See 2017 Pole Replacement Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9770, para. 26; see also 5 U.S.C. §553(b)(B) (notice not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”). 410 CCIA Comments at 10; CCA Comments at 13-14; CCA Reply at 6 (arguing for 30-day shot clock for collocations and a 60-to-75-day shot clock for all other siting applications); WIA Reply at 21. See also Letter from Jill Canfield, NTCA Vice President Legal & Industry and Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 2 (filed June 19, 2018) (stating that NTCA supports a revised interpretation of the phrase “reasonable period of time” as found in Section 332(c) (7)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act as applicable to small cell facilities and that sixty days for collocations and 90 days for all other small cell siting applications should provide local officials sufficient time for review of requests to install small cell facilities in public rights-of-way). 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 larger antennas and other equipment that may require additional time for localities to review and process.411 For similar reasons, we maintain the existing 150-day shot clock for new construction applications that are not for Small Wireless Facilities. While some industry commenters such as WIA, Samsung, and Crown Castle argue for a 90-day shot clock for macro cells and small cells alike, we agree with commenters such as the City of New Orleans that there is a significant difference between the review of applications for a single 175-foot tower versus the review of a Small Wireless Facility with much smaller dimensions.412 3. Collocations on Structures Not Previously Zoned for Wireless Use 140. Wireless industry commenters assert that they should be able to take advantage of the Section 332 collocation shot clock even when collocating on structures that have not previously been approved for wireless use.413 Siting agencies respond that the wireless industry is effectively seeking to have both the collocation definition and a reduced shot clock apply to sites that have never been approved by the local government as suitable for wireless facility deployment.414 We take this opportunity to clarify that for purposes of the Section 332 shot clocks, attachment of facilities to existing structures constitutes collocation, regardless whether the structure or the location has previously been zoned for wireless facilities. As the Commission stated in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, “an application is a request for collocation if it does not involve a ‘substantial increase in the size of a tower’ as defined in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas.”415 The definition of “[c]ollocation” in the NPA provides for the “mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.” 416 The NPA’s definition of collocation explicitly encompasses collocations on structures and buildings that have not yet been zoned for wireless use. To interpret the NPA any other way would be unduly narrow and there is no persuasive reason to accept a narrower interpretation. This is particularly true given that the NPA definition of collocation stands in direct contrast with the definition of collocation in the

411 Wireless Infrastructure Second R&O, FCC 18-30 at paras. 74-76. 412 New Orleans Comments at 2-3; Samsung Comments at 4-5 (arguing that the Commission should reduce the shot clock applicable to new construction from 150 days to 90 days); Crown Castle Comments at 29 (stating that a 90- day shot clock for new facilities is appropriate for macro cells and small cells alike, to the extent such applications require review under Section 332 at all); TX Hist. Comm. Comments at 2 (arguing that the reasonable periods of time that the FCC proposed in 2009, 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for other applications appear to be appropriate); WIA Comments at 20-23; WIA Reply at 11 (arguing for a 90-day shot clock for applications involving substantial modifications, including tower extensions; and a 120-day shot clock for applications for all other facilities, including new macro sites); CTIA Reply at 3 (stating that the Commission should shorten the shot clocks to 90 days for new facilities). 413 AT&T Comments at 10; AT&T Reply at 9; Verizon Reply at 32; WIA Comments at 22; ExteNet Comments at 9. 414 Bellevue et al. Reply at 6-7 (arguing that the Commission has rejected this argument twice and instead determined that a collocation occurs when a wireless facility is attached to an existing infrastructure that houses wireless communications facilities; San Francisco Reply at 7-8 (arguing that under Commission definitions, a utility pole is neither an existing base station nor a tower; thus, the Commission simply cannot find that adding wireless facilities to utility pole that has not previously been used for wireless facilities is an eligible facilities request). See, e.g., Letter from Bonnie Michael, City Council President, Worthington, OH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Letter from Jill Boudreau, Mayor, Mount Vernon, WA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2018). 415 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14012, para 46. 416 47 CFR Part 1, App. B, NPA, Subsection C, Definitions. 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Spectrum Act, pursuant to which facilities only fall within the scope of an “eligible facilities request” if they are attached to towers or base stations that have already been zoned for wireless use.417 4. When Shot Clocks Start and Incomplete Applications 141. In the 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, the Commission clarified, among other things, that a shot clock begins to run when an application is first submitted, not when the application is deemed complete.418 The clock can be paused, however, if the locality notifies the applicant within 30 days that the application is incomplete. 419 The locality may pause the clock again if it provides written notice within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. 420 In the Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, the Commission sought comment on these determinations.421 Localities contend that the shot clock period should not begin until the application is deemed complete.422 Industry commenters argue that the review period for incompleteness should be decreased from 30 days to 15 days.423 142. With the limited exception described in the next paragraph, we find no cause or basis in the record to alter the Commission’s prior determinations, and we now codify them in our rules. Codified rules, easily accessible to applicants and localities alike, should provide helpful clarity. The complaints by states and localities about the sufficiency of some of the applications they receive are adequately addressed by our current policy, particularly as amended below, which preserves the states’ and localities’ ability to pause review when they find an application to be incomplete.424 We do not find it necessary at this point to shorten our 30-day initial review period for completeness because, as was the case when this review period was adopted in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, it remains consistent with review periods for completeness under existing state wireless infrastructure deployment statutes425 and still “gives State and local governments sufficient time for reviewing applications for completeness, while protecting applicants

417 See 47 CFR § 1.40001(b)(3), (4), (5) (definitions of eligible facilities request, eligible support structure, and existing). Each of these definitions refers to facilities that have already been approved under local zoning or siting processes. 418 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, at para. 258. 419 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14014, paras. 52-53 (providing that the “timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond to State and local governments’ requests for additional information”). 420 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12970, para. 259. 421 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 20. 422 See, e.g., Maine DOT Comments at 2-3; Philadelphia Comments at 6; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. at 4, 8-9; Letter from Barbara Coler, Chair, Marin Telecommunications Agency, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 4, 2018) (Barbara Coler Sept. 4, 2018 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Sam Liccardo, Mayor, San Jose, CA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al., at 5 (filed Sept. 18, 2018). 423 Verizon Comments at 43. See Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 2 (asserting that the shot clocks should begin to run when the application is complete and that a siting authority should review the application for completeness within the first 15 days of receipt or it would waive the right to object on that basis). 424 See, e.g., Barbara Coler Sept. 4, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (the pace of installation may be affected by incomplete applications); Kenneth S. Fellman Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (not uncommon to find documents not properly prepared and not in compliance with relevant regulations). 425 Most states have a 30-day review period for incompleteness. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-27-403; Ga. Code Ann. § 36-66B-5; Iowa Code Ann. § 8C.4; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-2019; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 237.163(3c)(b); 53 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 11702.4(b)(1); Cal. Gov’t Code § 65943. A minority of states have adopted either a longer or shorter review period for incompleteness, ranging from 5 days to 45 days. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.53 (45 days); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 36.70B.070 (28 days); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-K:10 (15 days); Del. Code Ann. tit. 17, § 1609 (14 days); Va. Code Ann. §§ 15.2-2316.4; 56-484.28; 56-484.29 (10 days); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 66.0404(3) (5 days). 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 from a last minute decision that an application should be denied as incomplete.”426 143. However, for applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, we implement a modified tolling system designed to help ensure that providers are submitting complete applications on day one. This step accounts for the fact that the shot clocks applicable to such applications are shorter than those established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and, because of which, there may instances where the prevailing tolling rules would further shorten the shot clocks to such an extent that it might be impossible for siting authorities to act on the application.427 For Small Wireless Facilities applications, the siting authority has 10 days from the submission of the application to determine whether the application is incomplete. The shot clock then resets once the applicant submits the supplemental information requested by the siting authority. Thus, for example, for an application to collocate Small Wireless Facilities, once the applicant submits the supplemental information in response to a siting authority’s timely request, the shot clock resets, effectively giving the siting authority an additional 60 days to act on the Small Wireless Facilities collocation application. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the tolling rules that apply to non-Small Wireless Facilities would apply—that is, the shot clock would toll if the siting authority provides written notice within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. 144. As noted above, multiple authorizations may be required before a deployment is allowed to move forward. For instance, a locality may require a zoning permit, a building permit, an electrical permit, a road closure permit, and an architectural or engineering permit for an applicant to place, construct, or modify its proposed personal wireless service facilities. 428 All of these permits are subject to Section 332’s requirement to act within a reasonable period of time, and thus all are subject to the shot clocks we adopt or codify here. 145. We also find that mandatory pre-application procedures and requirements do not toll the shot clocks. 429 Industry commenters claim that some localities impose burdensome pre-application requirements before they will start the shot clock.430 Localities counter that in many instances, applicants submit applications that are incomplete in material respects, that pre-application interactions smooth the application process, and that many of their pre-application requirements go to important health and safety matters.431 We conclude that the ability to toll a shot clock when an application is found incomplete or by

426 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14014-15, para. 53. 427 See, e.g., Geoffrey C. Beckwith Sept. 11, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Letter from Brad Cole, Executive Director, Illinois Municipal League, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79 et al. at 1 (filed Sept. 14, 2018); Ronny Berdugo Sept. 18, 2018 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 428 See Sprint June 18 Ex Parte at 3; cf. Virginia Joint Commenters Comments at 21-22; San Francisco Comments at 4-7, 12, 20-22; CTIA Comments at 15 (“The Commission should declare that the shot clocks apply to the entire local review process.”). 429 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, 32 FCC Rcd at 3338, para. 20. 430 See, e.g., CCA Reply at 7 (noting also that some localities unreasonably request additional information after submission that is either already provided or of unreasonable scope); GCI Comments at 8-9; WIA Comments at 24; Crown Castle Comments at 21-22; CTIA Reply at 21; CIC Comments at 18; WIA Reply at 14; Conterra Comments at 2-3; Crown Castle Comments at 30-31; CTIA Comments at 15; ExteNet Comments at 4, 15-16; Mobilitie Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 21-22; Verizon Comment at 42-43; AT&T Comments at 26. 431 See, e.g., Philadelphia Reply at 9 (arguing that shot clocks should not run until a complete application with a full set of engineering drawings showing the placement, size and weight of the equipment, and a fully detailed structural analysis is submitted, to assess the safety of proposed installations); Philadelphia Comments at 6; League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 4 (arguing that the shot clock should not begin until after an application has been “duly filed,” because “some applicants believe the shot clock commences to run no matter how they submit their request, or how inadequate their submittal may be”); Colorado Comm. and Utility All. et al. Comments at 14 (explaining that the pre-application meetings are intended “to give prospective applicants an opportunity to discuss code and regulatory provisions with local government staff, and gain a better understanding of the process that will be followed, in order to increase the probability that once an application is filed, it can proceed smoothly to final decision”); Smart 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 mutual agreement by the applicant and the siting authority should be adequate to address these concerns. Much like a requirement to file applications one after another, requiring pre-application review would allow for a complete circumvention of the shot clocks by significantly delaying their start date. An application is not ruled on within “a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed” if the state or locality takes the full ordinary review period after having delayed the filing in the first instance due to required pre-application review. Indeed, requiring a pre-application review before an application may be filed is similar to imposing a moratorium, which the Commission has made clear does not stop the shot clocks from running.432 Therefore, we conclude that if an applicant proffers an application, but a state or locality refuses to accept it until a pre-application review has been completed,433 the shot clock begins to run when the application is proffered. In other words, the request is “duly filed” at that time,434 notwithstanding the locality’s refusal to accept it. 146. That said, we encourage voluntary pre-application discussions, which may well be useful to both parties. The record indicates that such meetings can clarify key aspects of the application review process, especially with respect to large submissions or applicants new to a particular locality’s processes, and may speed the pace of review.435 To the extent that an applicant voluntarily engages in a pre- application review to smooth the way for its filing, the shot clock will begin when an application is filed, presumably after the pre-application review has concluded. 147. We also reiterate, consistent with the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, that the remedies granted under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) are independent of, and in addition to, any remedies that may be available under state or local law.436 Thus, where a state or locality has established its own shot clocks, an applicant may pursue any remedies granted under state or local law in cases where the siting authority fails to act within those shot clocks.437 However, the applicant must wait until the Commission shot clock period has expired to bring suit for a “failure to act” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).438 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 148. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this Third Report and Order, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is contained in Appendix C. As required by Section 603 of

(Continued from previous page) Communities Comments at 15, 35 (pre-application procedures “may translate into faster consideration of individual applications over the longer term, as providers and communities alike, gain a better understanding of what is required of them, and providers submit applications that are tailored to community requirements”); UT Dept. of Trans. Comments at 5 (“The purpose of the pre-application access meeting is to help the entity or person with the application and provide information concerning the requirements contained in the rule.”); CCUA at al. Reply at 6 (“[Pre- application meetings] provide an opportunity for informal discussion between prospective applicants and the local jurisdiction. Pre-application meetings serve to educate, answer questions, clarify process issues, and ultimately result in a more efficient process from application filing to final action.”); AASHTO Comments, Attach. at 3 (GA Dept. of Trans. contending that pre-application procedures “should be encouraged and separated from an ‘official’ “application submittal”); League of Az Cities and Towns et al. Comments at 5-7 (providing examples of incomplete applications). 432 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12971, at para. 265. 433 See, e.g., CCA Reply at 7; GCI Comments at 8-9; WIA Comments at 24; Crown Castle Comments at 21-22; CTIA Reply at 21; CIC Comments at 18; WIA Reply at 14; Conterra Comments at 2-3; Crown Castle Comments at 30-31; CTIA Comments at 15; ExteNet Comments at 4, 15-16; Mobilitie Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 21-22; Verizon Comment at 42-43; AT&T Comments at 26. 434 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 435 See CCUA et al. Comments at 14; Smart Communities Comments at 15, 35; UT Dept. of Trans. Comments at 5; CCUA et al. Reply at 6; Mukilteo Reply, Docket No. WC 17-84, at 1 (filed July 10, 2017). 436 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14013-14, para. 50. 437 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14013-14, para. 50. 438 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a FRFA of the expected impact on small entities of the requirements adopted in this Third Report and Order. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 149. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Third Report and Order does not contain new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 150. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 151. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 7, 201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 157, 201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in WT Docket No. 17-79 IS hereby ADOPTED. 152. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules is AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A, and that these changes SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. 153. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Third Report and Order SHALL BE effective 90 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Declaratory Ruling and the obligations set forth therein ARE EFFECTIVE on the same day that this Third Report and Order becomes effective. It is our intention in adopting the foregoing Declaratory Ruling and these rule changes that, if any provision of the Declaratory Ruling or the rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be unlawful, the remaining portions of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules not deemed unlawful, and the application of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules to other person or circumstances, shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 CFR § 1.4(b)(1), the period for filing petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order will commence on the date that a summary of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order is published in the Federal Register. 155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order SHALL BE sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

APPENDIX A

Final Rules

Streamlining State and Local Review of Wireless Facility Siting Applications

Part 1—Practice and Procedure

1. Add subpart U to Part 1 of Title 47 to read as follows:

Subpart U—State and Local Government Regulation of the Placement, Construction, and Modification of Personal Wireless Service Facilities

§ 1.6001 Purpose.

This subpart implements 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) and 1455.

§ 1.6002 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart have the following meanings:

(a) Action or to act on a siting application means a siting authority’s grant of a siting application or issuance of a written decision denying a siting application.

(b) Antenna, consistent with section 1.1320(d), means an apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. For purposes of this definition, the term antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile station, or device authorized under part 15 of this title.

(c) Antenna equipment, consistent with section 1.1320(d), means equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.

(d) Antenna facility means an antenna and associated antenna equipment.

(e) Applicant means a person or entity that submits a siting application and the agents, employees, and contractors of such person or entity.

(f) Authorization means any approval that a siting authority must issue under applicable law prior to the deployment of personal wireless service facilities, including, but not limited to, zoning approval and building permit.

(g) Collocation, consistent with section 1.1320(d) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Appendix B of this part, section I.B, means—

(1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or

(2) Modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure.

(3) The definition of “collocation” in paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.6100 applies to the term as used in that section. 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

(h) Deployment means placement, construction, or modification of a personal wireless service facility.

(i) Facility or personal wireless service facility means an antenna facility or a structure that is used for the provision of personal wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services.

(j) Siting application or application means a written submission to a siting authority requesting authorization for the deployment of a personal wireless service facility at a specified location.

(k) Siting authority means a State government, local government, or instrumentality of a State government or local government, including any official or organizational unit thereof, whose authorization is necessary prior to the deployment of personal wireless service facilities.

(l) Small wireless facilities, consistent with section 1.1312(e)(2), are facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

(1) The facilities—

(i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section 1.1320(d), or

(ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or

(iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;

(4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;

(5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b).

(m) Structure means a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services).

Terms not specifically defined in this section or elsewhere in this subpart have the meanings defined in Part 1 of Title 47 and the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.

79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

§ 1.6003 Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications

(a) Timely action required. A siting authority that fails to act on a siting application on or before the shot clock date for the application, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, is presumed not to have acted within a reasonable period of time.

(b) Shot clock period. The shot clock period for a siting application is the sum of—

(1) the number of days of the presumptively reasonable period of time for the pertinent type of application, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, plus

(2) the number of days of the tolling period, if any, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Presumptively reasonable periods of time.

(1) The following are the presumptively reasonable periods of time for action on applications seeking authorization for deployments in the categories set forth below:

(i) Review of an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 60 days.

(ii) Review of an application to collocate a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 90 days.

(iii) Review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 90 days.

(iv) Review of an application to deploy a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 150 days.

(2) Batching.

(i) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, all of which fall within a category set forth in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is equal to that for a single deployment within that category.

(ii) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, the components of which are a mix of deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(i) and deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is 90 days.

(iii) Siting authorities may not refuse to accept applications under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii).

(d) Tolling period. Unless a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority provides otherwise, the tolling period for an application (if any) is as set forth below.

(1) For an initial application to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, if the siting authority notifies the applicant on or before the 10th day after submission that the application is materially incomplete, and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information and the specific rule or regulation creating the obligation to submit such documents or information, the shot clock date calculation shall restart at zero on the date on which the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete. 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

(2) For all other initial applications, the tolling period shall be the number of days from –

(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the application is materially incomplete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that the applicant must submit to render the application complete and the specific rule or regulation creating this obligation, until

(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete,

(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) is effectuated on or before the 30th day after the date when the application was submitted; or

(3) For resubmitted applications following a notice of deficiency, the tolling period shall be the number of days from—

(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the applicant’s supplemental submission was not sufficient to render the application complete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that need to be submitted based on the siting authority’s original request under paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this section, until

(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete,

(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(i) is effectuated on or before the 10th day after the date when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the siting authority’s request under paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(e) Shot clock date. The shot clock date for a siting application is determined by counting forward, beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of calendar days of the shot clock period identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and including any pre- application period asserted by the siting authority; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a “holiday” as defined in section 1.4(e)(1) or a legal holiday within the relevant State or local jurisdiction, the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. The term “business day” means any day as defined in section 1.4(e)(2) and any day that is not a legal holiday as defined by the State or local jurisdiction.

3. Redesignate § 1.40001 as § 1.6100, remove and reserve paragraph (a) of newly redesignated § 1.6100, and revise paragraph (b)(7)(vi) of newly redesignated § 1.6100 by changing “1.40001(b)(7)(i)(iv)” to “1.6100(b)(7)(i)-(iv).”

4. Remove subpart CC.

81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

APPENDIX B

Comments and Reply Comments

Comments 5G Americas Aaron Rosenzweig ACT | The App Association Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal African American Mayors Association Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Alaska Native Health Board Alaska Office of History and Archaeology Alexandra Ansell American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Bird Conservancy American Cable Association American Petroleum Institute American Public Power Association Angela Fox Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arizona State Parks & Trails, State Historic Preservation Office Arkansas SHPO Arnold A. McMahon Association of American Railroads AT&T B. Golomb Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Benjamin L. Yousef BioInitiative Working Group Blue Lake Rancheria Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Oakland Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation Cahuilla Band of Indians California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation California Public Utilities Commission Cape Cod Bird Club, Inc. Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office Charter Communications, Inc. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cultural Preservation Office Chickasaw Nation Chippewa Cree Tribe Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Chuck Matzker Cindy Li Cindy Russell Cities of San Antonio, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; Bowie, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and Knoxville, Tennessee Citizen Potawatomi Nation Citizens Against Government Waste 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

City and County of San Francisco City of Alexandria, Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; and Henrico County, Virginia City of Arlington, Texas City of Austin, Texas City of Bellevue, City of Bothell, City of Burien, City of Ellensburg, City of Gig Harbor, City of Kirkland, City of Mountlake Terrace, City of Mukilteo, City of Normandy Park, City of Puyallup, City of Redmond, and City of Walla Walla City of Chicago City of Claremont (Tony Ramos, City Manager) City of Eden Prairie, MN City of Houston City of Irvine, California City of Kenmore, Washington, and David Baker, Vice-Chair, National League of Cities Information Technology and Communications Committee City of Lansing, Michigan City of Mukilteo City of New Orleans, Louisiana City of New York City of Philadelphia City of Springfield, Oregon Cityscape Consultants, Inc. Coalition for American Heritage, Society for American Archaeology, American Cultural Resources Association, Society for Historical Archaeology, and American Anthropological Association Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (CCUA), Rainier Communications Commission (RCC), City of Seattle, Washington, City of Tacoma, Washington, King County, Washington, Jersey Access Group (JAG), and Colorado Municipal League (CML) Colorado River Indian Tribes Colorado State Historic Preservation Office Comcast Corporation Commissioner Sal Pace, Pueblo Board of County Commissioners Community Associations Institute Competitive Carriers Association CompTIA (The Computing Technology Industry Association) Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Cultural Resources Protection Program Consumer Technology Association Conterra Broadband Services, Southern Light, LLC, and Uniti Group, Inc. Critical Infrastructure Coalition Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Crown Castle CTIA CTIA and Wireless Infrastructure Association David Roetman, Minnehaha County GOP Chairman Defenders of Wildlife Department of Arkansas Heritage (Arkansas Historic Preservation Program) DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference East Bay Municipal Utility District Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Edward Czelada Elijah Mondy Elizabeth Doonan

83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Ellen Marks EMF Safety Network, Ecological Options Network Environmental Health Trust ExteNet Systems, Inc. Fairfax County, Virginia FibAire Communications, LLC d/b/a AireBeam Florida Coalition of Local Governments Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin Fort Belknap Indian Community Free State Foundation General Communication, Inc. Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Historic Preservation Division Georgia Municipal Association, Inc. Gila River Indian Community Greywale Advisors History Colorado (Colorado State Historic Preservation Office) Hongwei Dong Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources Illinois Department of Transportation Illinois Municipal League INCOMPAS Information Technology and Innovation Foundation International Telecommunications Users Group Jack Li Jackie Cale Jerry Day Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Jonathan Mirin Joyce Barrett Karen Li Karen Spencer Karon Gubbrud Kate Kheel Kaw Nation Kevin Mottus Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Kialegee Tribal Town League of Arizona Cities and Towns, League of California Cities, and League of Oregon Cities League of Minnesota Cities Leo Cashman Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Li Lightower Fiber Networks Lisbeth Britt Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Maine Department of Transportation Marty Feffer Mary Whisenand, Iowa Governor’s Commission on Community Action Agencies Mashantucket (Western) Pequot Tribe Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Matthew Goulet Mayor Patrick Furey, City of Torrance, California McLean Citizens Association Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Missouri State Historic Preservation Office Mobile Future Mobilitie, LLC Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Montana State Historic Preservation Office Monte R. Lee and Company Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers National Black Caucus of State Legislators National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers National Congress of American Indians National Congress of American Indians, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund National Congress of American Indians and United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund National League of Cities National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Government Finance Officers Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, National Association of Towns and Townships, and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors National Tribal Telecommunications Association National Trust for Historic Preservation Native Public Media NATOA Natural Resources Defense Council Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission Naveen Albert NCTA—The Internet & Television Association nepsa solutions LLC New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division Nez Perce Tribe Nina Beety Nokia North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic Preservation Office NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association Office of Historic Preservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation of Connecticut Ohio State Historic Preservation Office Oklahoma History Center State Historic Preservation Office Olemara Peters Omaha Tribe of Nebraska ONE Media, LLC Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Osage Nation Otoe-Missouria Tribe Pala Band of Mission Indians

85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Patrick Wronkiewicz Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office Prairie Island Indian Community PTA-FLA, Inc . Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Tesuque Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma R Street Institute Rebecca Carol Smith Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Representative Tom Sloan, State of Kansas House of Representatives Representatives Anna G. Eshoo, Frank Pallone, Jr., and Raul Ruiz, U.S. House of Representatives Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission Rosebud Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Cultural Resource Management Office Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. S. Quick Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Santa Clara Pueblo Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians SCAN NATOA, Inc. Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Seminole Tribe of Florida Senator Duane Ankney, Montana State Senate Shawnee Tribe Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Skokomish Indian Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office Skull Valley Band of Goshute Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition Soula Culver Sprint Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Starry, Inc. State of Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Sue Present Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Government Office Tanana Chiefs Conference Telecommunications Industry Association Texas Department of Transportation Texas Historical Commission Thlopthlocco Tribal Town T-Mobile USA, Inc. Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Triangle Communication System, Inc. Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians In Oklahoma Utah Department of Transportation

86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Utilities Technology Council Verizon Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) WEC Energy Group, Inc. Wei Shen Wei-Ching Lee, MD, California Medical Association Delegate of Los Angeles County Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Wireless Infrastructure Association Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Xcel Energy Services Inc.

Reply Comments Alaska State Historic Preservation Office American Cable Association American Public Power Association Association of American Railroads California Public Utilities Commission Catherine Kleiber Chippewa Cree Tribe Cities of San Antonio, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; Bowie, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and Knoxville, Tennessee City of Baltimore, Maryland City of New York City of Philadelphia Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (CCUA), Rainier Communications Commission (RCC), City of Seattle, Washington, City of Tacoma, Washington, King County, Washington, Jersey Access Group (JAG), and Colorado Municipal League (CML) Comcast Corporation Communications Workers of America Competitive Carriers Association Consumer Technology Association Conterra Broadband Services, Southern Light, LLC, and Uniti Group Inc. Critical Infrastructure Coalition CTIA Dan Kleiber Enterprise Wireless Alliance Environmental Health Trust ExteNet Systems, Inc. Florida Coalition of Local Governments Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Historic Preservation Department INCOMPAS Irregulators League of Arizona Cities and Towns, League of California Cities, and League of Oregon Cities National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National League of Cities, National Association of Towns and Townships, National Association of Regional Councils, United States Conference of Mayors, and Government Finance Officers Association National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, and National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers National Organization of Black Elected Legislative (NOBEL) Women National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission NCTA—The Internet & Television Association Pueblo of Acoma Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., d/b/a Claro Quintillion Networks, LLC, and Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC Rebecca Carol Smith SDN Communications Skyway Towers, LLC SmallCellSite.Com Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition Sue Present The Greenlining Institute T-Mobile USA, Inc. Triangle Communication System, Inc. United States Conference of Mayors Verizon Washington, D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Xcel Energy Services Inc.

88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

APPENDIX C

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released in April 2017.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are addressed below in Section B. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3 A. Need for and Objectives of the Rules 2. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission continues its efforts to promote the timely buildout of wireless infrastructure across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments that unnecessarily delay bringing personal wireless services to consumers. The record shows that lengthy delays in approving siting applications by siting agencies has been a persistent problem.4 With this in mind, the Third Report and Order establishes and codifies specific rules concerning the amount of time siting agencies may take to review and approve certain categories of wireless infrastructure siting applications. More specifically, the Commission addresses its Section 332 shot clock rules for infrastructure applications which will be presumed reasonable under the Communications Act. As an initial matter, the Commission establishes two new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities applications. For collocation of Small Wireless Facilities on preexisting structures, the Commission adopts a 60-day shot clock which applies to both individual and batched applications. For applications associated with Small Wireless Facilities new construction we adopt a 90-day shot clock for both individual and batched applications.5 The Commission also codifies two existing Section 332 shot clocks for all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities that were established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling without codification.6These existing shot clocks require 90-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities collocation applications, and 150-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities applications other than collocations. 3. The Third Report and Order addresses other issues related to both the existing and new shot clocks. In particular we address the specific types of authorizations subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), finding that “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations a locality may require, and to all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including license or franchise agreements to access ROW, building permits, public notices and meetings, lease negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed for deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. 7 The Commission also addresses collocation on structures not previously zoned for wireless use,8 when the four Section 332 shot clocks begin to run, 9

1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601—612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 2 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 3330 (2017). 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. 4 See supra paras. 23-9. 5 See supra paras. 111-12. 6 See supra paras. 138-39; 2009 Declaratory Ruling. 7 See supra paras. 132-37. 8 See supra para. 140. 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 the impact of incomplete applications on our Section 332 shot clocks,10 and how state imposed shot clocks remedies effect the Commission’s Section 332 shot clocks remedies.11 4. The Commission discusses the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may pursue in cases where a siting authority fails to act within the applicable shot clock period.12 In those situations, applicants may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and seek injunctive relief granting the application. Notwithstanding the availability of a judicial remedy if a shot clock deadline is missed, the Commission recognizes that the Section 332 time frames might not be met in exceptional circumstances and has refined its interpretation of the circumstances when a period of time longer than the relevant shot clock would nonetheless be a reasonable period of time for action by a siting agency.13 In addition, a siting authority that is subject to a court action for missing an applicable shot clock deadline has the opportunity to demonstrate that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services thereby rebutting the effective prohibition presumption. 5. The rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure needed for the mobile wireless services of the future, while preserving the fundamental role of localities in this process. Under the Commission’s new rules, localities will maintain control over the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities, while at the same time the Commission’s new process will streamline the review of wireless siting applications. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 6. Only one party—the Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition—filed comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. They argue that any shortening or alteration of the Commission’s existing shot clocks or the adoption of a deemed granted remedy will adversely affect small local governments, special districts, property owners, small developers, and others by placing their siting applications behind wireless provider siting applications.14 Subsequently, NATOA filed comments concerning the draft FRFA.15 NATOA argues that the new shot clocks impose burdens on local governments and particularly those with limited resources. NATOA asserts that the new shot clocks will spur more deployment applications than localities currently process. 7. These arguments, however, fail to acknowledge that Section 332 shot clocks have been in place for years and reflect Congressional intent as seen in the statutory language of Section 332. The record in this proceeding demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of certain facility deployments.16 More streamlined procedures are both reasonable and necessary to provide greater predictability. The current shot clocks do not reflect the evolution of the application review process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more quickly than was the case when the original shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Localities have gained significant experience processing wireless siting applications and several jurisdictions already have in place laws that require

(Continued from previous page) 9 See supra paras. 141-46. 10 Id. 11 See supra para. 147. 12 See supra paras. Error! Reference source not found.-131. 13 See supra para. 127. 14 Smart Communities Comments at 81; see also Letter from Gerard Lavery Lederer, Counsel, Smart Communities, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, Ex Parte Submission at 33 (filed Sept. 19, 2018). 15 Letter from Nancy Werner, NATOA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17-79, at 4-5 (filed Sept. 19, 2018). 16 See supra para. 106. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 applications to be processed in less time than the Commission’s new shot clocks. With the passage of time, sitting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications and this, in turn, should reduce any economic burden the Commission’s new shot clock provisions have on them. 8. The Commission has carefully considered the impact of its new shot clocks on siting authorities and has established shot clocks that take into consideration the nature and scope of siting requests by establishing shot clocks of different lengths of time that depend on the nature of the siting request at issue. 17 The length of these shot clocks is based in part on the need to ensure that local governments have ample time to take any steps needed to protect public safety and welfare and to process other pending utility applications.18 Since local siting authorities have gained experience in processing siting requests in an expedited fashion, they should be able to comply with the Commission’s new shot clocks. 9. The Commission has taken into consideration the concerns of the Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition and NATOA. It has established shot clocks that will not favor wireless providers over other applicants with pending siting applications. Further, instead of adopting a deemed granted remedy that would grant a siting application when a shot clock lapses without a decision on the merits, the Commission provides guidance as to the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may pursue and examples of exceptional circumstance where a siting authority may be justified in needing additional time to review a siting application then the applicable shot clock allows. 19 Under this approach, the applicant may seek injunctive relief as long as several minimum requirements are met. The siting authority, however, can rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the applicable shot clock under certain circumstances. The circumstances under which a sitting authority might have to do this will be rare. Under this carefully crafted approach, the interests of siting applicants, siting authorities, and citizens are protected. C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 10. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.20 11. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding. D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.21 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”22 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.23 A “small business

17 See supra paras. 105-112. 18 Id. 19 See supra paras. 116-131. 20 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3). 21 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3). 22 5 U.S.C. § 601(6). 23 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.24 13. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.25 First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.26 These types of small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.27 14. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not- for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”28 Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).29 15. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”30 U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments31 indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.32 Of this number there were

(Continued from previous page) agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 24 15 U.S.C. § 632. 25 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6). 26 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small business?” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016). 27 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2- How many small businesses are there in the U.S.?” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016). 28 5 U.S.C. § 601(4). 29 Data from the Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS was used to estimate the number of small organizations. Reports generated using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than $100,000. Of this number 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data release date. See http://nccs.urban.org/sites/all/nccs-archive/html//tablewiz/tw.php where the report showing this data can be generated by selecting the following data fields: Report: “The Number and Finances of All Registered 501(c) Nonprofits”; Show: “Registered Nonprofits”; By: “Total Revenue Level (years 1995, Aug to 2016, Aug)”; and For: “2016, Aug” then selecting “Show Results”. 30 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). 31 See 13 U.S.C. § 161. The Census of Government is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with “2” and “7”. See also Program Description Census of Government https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=program&id=program.en.CO G#. 32 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Local Governments by Type and State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG02.US01. Local governmental jurisdictions are classified in two categories - General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) and Special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts). 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

37, 132 General purpose governments (county33, municipal and town or township34) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts35 and special districts36) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category show that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000.37 Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”38. 16. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.39 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.40 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.41 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.42 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications

33 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01. There were 2,114 county governments with populations less than 50,000. 34 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population- Size Group and State: 2012 - United States—States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01. There were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 35 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. There were 12,184 independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000. 36 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Special District Governments by Function and State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG09.US01. The U.S. Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments. 37 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States - https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01; Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States–States - https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01; and Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. While U.S. Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments, if the population of less than 50,000 for this category of local government is consistent with the other types of local governments the majority of the 38, 266 special district governments have populations of less than 50,000. 38 Id. 39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite),” See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&typib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.51 7210. 40 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. 41 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 42 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 carriers (except satellite) are small entities. 17. The Commission’s own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions.43 The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.44 Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.45 Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. 18. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low-power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules.46 These services include Citizen Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service.47 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. All such entities in this category are wireless, therefore we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which the SBA’s small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons.48 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.49 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.50 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. We note however that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities that may be affected by our actions in this proceeding. 19. Public Safety Radio Licensees. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees as a general matter, include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency

43 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. For the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration Numbers. 44 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf. 45 See id. 46 47 CFR Part 90. 47 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H, subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of Part 95 of the Commission’s rules. See generally 47 CFR Part 95. 48 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312. 49 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 50 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

medical services.51 Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 52 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.53 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.54 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, we include under public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records, there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services.55 There are 3,121 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017.56 We estimate that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses. 20. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications.57 The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business

51 See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed material). Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use radio for official purposes. State departments of conservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. State and local governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. Emergency medical licensees use these channels for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Additional licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public communications facilities. 52 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. 53 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 54 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 55 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of June 27, 2008. Licensing numbers change daily. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller as of the date of this order. This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about the number of public safety licensees that have less than 1,500 employees. 56 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017. Search parameters: Radio Service = PA—Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active. 57 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite),” See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type= ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210 (last visited Mar. 6, 2018). 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.58 For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.59 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.60 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees are small entities. 21. According to the Commission’s records, a total of approximately 400,622 licenses comprise PLMR users.61 Of this number there are a total of 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz, which is the range affected by the Third Report and Order.62 The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, and does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information. 22. Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into two categories: (1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the size standards established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years.63 A “Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years.64 The SBA has approved these definitions.65 The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. 23. The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 11,653 site-based MAS station authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with common carrier service. In addition, the Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission’s licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS

58 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. 59 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 60 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 61 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of September 19, 2016. Licensing numbers change on a daily basis. This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about the number of PLMR licensees that have fewer than 1,500 employees. 62 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of August 16, 2013. Licensing numbers change daily. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller as of the date of this order. This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about the number of licensees that have fewer than 1,500 employees. 63 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008 para. 123 (2000). 64 Id. 65 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (June 4, 1999). 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 licenses in 176 EAs was conducted.66 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won 1,891 licenses. 24. With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the definition developed by the SBA would be more appropriate than the Commission’s definition. The closest applicable definition of a small entity is the “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” definition under the SBA rules.67 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.68 For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.69 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.70 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be affected by our action can be considered small. 25. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high-speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).71 26. BRS - In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.72 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately there are approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent

66 See Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001). 67 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210. 68 Id. 69 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 70 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.” 71 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995). 72 47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

BRS licensees do not meet the small business size standard).73 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules. 27. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. 74 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.75 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.76 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses. 28. EBS - The Educational Broadband Service has been included within the broad economic census category and SBA size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.77 The SBA’s small business size standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.78 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.79 Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.80 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. In addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission’s Universal Licensing System indicates that as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational

73 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees. 74 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277 (2009). 75 Id. at 8296 para. 73. 76 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009). 77 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2017. 78 See 13 CFR § 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. See, https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017. 79 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110. 80 Id. 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.81 29. Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million.82 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million.83 These definitions have been approved by the SBA.84 An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999 and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses. 30. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”85 These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.86 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.87 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year.88 Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more.89 Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard. 31. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,377.90 Of this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 384.91 Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how

81 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). 82 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192 para. 20 (1998); see also 47 CFR § 90.1103. 83 Id. 84 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 22, 1999). 85 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515120&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 86 Id. 87 13 CFR § 121.201; 2012 NAICS Code 515120. 88 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 (515120 Television Broadcasting). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515120. 89 Id. 90 Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press Release (MB, rel. Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast Station Totals Press Release), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf. 91 Id. 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations.92 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard. 32. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.93 Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 33. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”94 The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category as firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.95 Economic Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.96 Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.97 Therefore, based on the SBA’s size standard the majority of such entities are small entities. 34. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Publications, Inc. Media Access Pro Radio Database (BIA) as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.92 percent) of 11,270 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.98 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,633 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,738, for a total number of 11,371.99 We note, that the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed NCE radio stations to be 4,128.100 Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

92 Id. 93 See 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1) “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 94 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations,” https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 95 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. 96 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 515112, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515112. 97 Id. 98 BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database (viewed Jan. 26, 2018). 99 Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press Release (MB Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast Station Totals), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf. 100 Id. 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

35. We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included.101 The Commission’s estimate therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.102 We further note, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 36. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the category of Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICS Code as licensees of radio stations.103 This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.104 Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.105 The SBA has established a small business size standard which consists of all radio stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 million dollars or less.106 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.107 Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.108 Therefore, based on the SBA’s size standard, we conclude that the majority of FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations are small. 37. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.109 These definitions were approved by the SBA.110 On January 27, 2004, the Commission

101 13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1). “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has power to control both.” 102 13 CFR § 121.102(b). 103 See, U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations,” https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 104 Id. 105 Id. 106 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515112. 107 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 515112, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515112. 108 Id. 109 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co- Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.111 Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small business status.112 38. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”113 Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.114 For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year.115 Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million.116 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities. 39. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.117 This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.118 Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.119 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.120 For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there

(Continued from previous page) Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, para. 252 (2002). 110 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 13, 2002). 111 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004). 112 See “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 63,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005). 113 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517410&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 114 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410. 115 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS Code 517410, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517410. 116 Id. 117 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code “517919 All Other Telecommunications”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 118 Id. 119 Id. 120 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919. 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year.121 Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.122 Thus, a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small. 40. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,123 private- operational fixed,124 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.125 They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS),126 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),127 the 39 GHz Service (39 GHz),128 the 24 GHz Service,129 and the Millimeter Wave Service130 where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.131 At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.132 The Commission has not yet defined a small business size standard for microwave services. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.133 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.134 Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small. 41. The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of

121 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919. 122 Id. 123 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart I. 124 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave services. See 47 CFR Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations. 125 See 47 CFR Parts 74, 78 (governing Auxiliary Microwave Service) Available to licensees of broadcast stations, cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio. 126 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 1001-101, 1017. 127 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 101.501-101.538. 128 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart N (reserved for Competitive bidding procedures for the 38.6-40 GHz Band). 129 See id. 130 See 47 CFR §§ 101, 101.1501-101.1527. 131 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017. 132 These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015. 133 13 CFR § 121.201. 134 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series, “Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 licensees. The Commission also notes that it does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s small business size standard. The Commission estimates however, that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 42. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure. Although at one time most communications towers were owned by the licensee using the tower to provide communications service, many towers are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide communications services themselves but lease space on their towers to other companies that provide communications services. The Commission’s rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to construct a tower over 200 feet in height or within the glide slope of an airport must register the tower with the Commission’s Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) system and comply with applicable rules regarding review for impact on the environment and historic properties. 43. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately 122,157 registration records reflecting a “Constructed” status and 13,987 registration records reflecting a “Granted, Not Constructed” status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we can easily determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have registered towers.135 Regarding towers that do not require ASR registration, we do not collect information as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners that would be subject to the rules on which we seek comment. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, we are unable to determine the number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We believe, however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners number in the thousands. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cells that might be affected by the measures on which we seek comment. We do not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities. 44. The closest applicable SBA category is All Other Telecommunications, and the appropriate size standard consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.136 For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year.137 Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.138 Thus, under this SBA size standard a majority of the firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small. E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 45. The Third Report and Order does not establish any reporting, recordkeeping, or other

135 We note, however, that approximately 13,000 towers are registered to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more employees. 136 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919. 137 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919. 138 Id. 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 compliance requirements for companies involved in wireless infrastructure deployment.139 In addition to not adopting any reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, the Commission takes significant steps to reduce regulatory impediments to infrastructure deployment and, therefore, to spur the growth of personal wireless services. Under the Commission’s approach, small entities as well as large companies will be assured that their deployment requests will be acted upon within a reasonable period of time and, if their applications are not addressed within the established time frames, applicants may seek injunctive relief granting their siting applications. The Commission, therefore, has taken concrete steps to relieve companies of all sizes of uncertainly and has eliminated unnecessary delays. 46. The Third Report and Order also does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements on state and local governments. While some commenters argue that additional shot clock classifications would make the siting process needlessly complex without any proven benefits, the Commission concludes that any additional administrative burden from increasing the number of Section 332 shot clocks from two to four is outweighed by the likely significant benefit of regulatory certainty and the resulting streamlined deployment process.140 The Commission’s actions are consistent with the statutory language of Section 332 and therefore reflect Congressional intent. Further, siting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications and will be able to take advantage of these efficiencies in meeting the new shot clocks. As a result, the additional shot clocks that the Commission adopts will foster the deployment of the latest wireless technology and serve consumer interests. F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 47. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”141 48. The steps taken by the Commission in the Third Report and Order eliminate regulatory burdens for small entities as well as large companies that are involved with the deployment of person wireless services infrastructure. By establishing shot clocks and guidance on injunctive relief for personal wireless services infrastructure deployments, the Commission has standardized and streamlined the permitting process. These changes will significantly minimize the economic burden of the siting process on all entities, including small entities, involved in deploying personal wireless services infrastructure. The record shows that permitting delays imposes significant economic and financial burdens on companies with pending wireless infrastructure permits. Eliminating permitting delays will remove the associated cost burdens and enabling significant public interest benefits by speeding up the deployment of personal wireless services and infrastructure. In addition, siting agencies will be able to utilize the efficiencies that they have gained over the years processing siting applications to minimize financial impacts. 49. The Commission considered but did not adopt proposals by commenters to issue “Best Practices” or “Recommended Practices,”142 and to develop an informal dispute resolution process and

139 See supra para. 144. 140 See supra para. 110. 141 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4). 142 KS Rep. Sloan Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 10. 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 mediation program, 143 noting that the steps taken in the Third Report and Order address the concerns underlying these proposals to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions.144 The Commission anticipates that the changes it has made to the permitting process will provide significant efficiencies in the deployment of personal wireless services facilities and this in turn will benefit all companies, but particularly small entities, that may not have the resources and economies of scale of larger entities to navigate the permitting process. By adopting these changes, the Commission will continue to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, while reducing the burden on small entities by removing unnecessary impediments to the rapid deployment of personal wireless services facilities and infrastructure across the country. Report to Congress 50. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.145 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) also will be published in the Federal Register. 146

143 NATOA et al. Comments at 16-17. 144 See supra para. 131. 145 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 146 5 U.S.C. § 604(b). 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI

Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84

Perhaps the defining characteristic of the communications sector over the past decade is that the world is going wireless. The smartphone’s introduction in 2007 may have seemed an interesting novelty to some at the time, but it was a precursor of a transformative change in how consumers access and use the Internet. 4G LTE was a key driver in that change.

Today, a new transition is at hand as we enter the era of 5G. At the FCC, we’re working hard to ensure that the United States leads the world in developing this next generation of wireless connectivity so that American consumers and our nation’s economy enjoy the immense benefits that 5G will bring.

Spectrum policy of course features prominently in our 5G strategy. We’re pushing a lot more spectrum into the commercial marketplace. On November 14, for example, our 28 GHz band spectrum auction will begin, and after it ends, our 24 GHz band spectrum auction will start. And in 2019, we plan to auction off three additional spectrum bands.

But all the spectrum in the world won’t matter if we don’t have the infrastructure needed to carry 5G traffic. New physical infrastructure is vital for success here. That’s because 5G networks will depend less on a few large towers and more on numerous small cell deployments—deployments that for the most part don’t exist today.

But installing small cells isn’t easy, too often because of regulations. There are layers of (sometimes unnecessary and unreasonable) rules that can prevent widespread deployment. At the federal level, we acted earlier this year to modernize our regulations and make our own review process for wireless infrastructure 5G fast. And many states and localities have similarly taken positive steps to reform their own laws and increase the likelihood that their citizens will be able to benefit from 5G networks.

But as this Order makes clear, there are outliers that are unreasonably standing in the way of wireless infrastructure deployment. So today, we address regulatory barriers at the local level that are inconsistent with federal law. For instance, big-city taxes on 5G slow down deployment there and also jeopardize the construction of 5G networks in suburbs and rural America. So today, we find that all fees must be non-discriminatory and cost-based. And when a municipality fails to act promptly on applications, it can slow down deployment in many other localities. So we mandate shot clocks for local government review of small wireless infrastructure deployments.

I commend Commissioner Carr for his leadership in developing this Order. He worked closely with many state and local officials to understand their needs and to study the policies that have worked at the state and local level. It should therefore come as no surprise that this Order has won significant support from mayors, local officials, and state legislators.

To be sure, there are some local governments that don’t like this Order. They would like to continue extracting as much money as possible in fees from the private sector and forcing companies to navigate a maze of regulatory hurdles in order to deploy wireless infrastructure. But these actions are not only unlawful, they’re also short-sighted. They slow the construction of 5G networks and will delay if not prevent the benefits of 5G from reaching American consumers. And let’s also be clear about one thing: When you raise the cost of deploying wireless infrastructure, it is those who live in areas where the

107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 investment case is the most marginal—rural areas or lower-income urban areas—who are most at risk of losing out. And I don’t want 5G to widen the digital divide; I want 5G to help close that divide.

In conclusion, I’d like to again thank Commissioner Carr for leading this effort and his staff for their diligent work. And I’m grateful to the hardworking staff across the agency who have put many hours into this Order. In particular, thanks to Jonathan Campbell, Stacy Ferraro, Garnet Hanly, Leon Jackler, Eli Johnson, Jonathan Lechter, Kate Matraves, Betsy McIntyre, Darrel Pae, Jennifer Salhus, Dana Shaffer, Jiaming Shang, David Sieradzki, Michael Smith, Don Stockdale, Cecilia Sulhoff, Patrick Sun, Suzanne Tetreault, and Joseph Wyer from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Matt Collins, Adam Copeland, Dan Kahn, Deborah Salons, and John Visclosky from the Wireline Competition Bureau; Chana Wilkerson from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities; and Ashley Boizelle, David Horowitz, Tom Johnson, Marcus Maher, Bill Richardson, and Anjali Singh from the Office of General Counsel.

108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY

Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84

I enthusiastically support the intent of today’s item and the vast majority of its content, as it will lower the barriers that some localities place to infrastructure siting. By tackling exorbitant fees, ridiculous practices, and prolonged delays, we are taking the necessary steps to expedite deployment and make it more cost efficient. Collectively, these provisions will help facilitate the deployment of 5G and enable providers to expand services throughout our nation, with ultimate beneficiaries being the American people.

While this is a tremendous step in the right direction, there are some things that could have been done to improve the situation further. For instance, the agreement reached by all parties in the 1996 Telecommunications Act was that states and localities would have no role over radio frequency emission issues, could not regulate based on the aesthetics of towers and antennas, and were prohibited from imposing any moratoriums on processing wireless siting applications. State and localities did not honor this agreement and the courts have sadly enabled their efforts via harmful and wrongly decided cases. Accordingly, I would have preferred that the aesthetics related provisions in the item be deleted, but I will have to swallow it recognizing that I can’t get the rest without it. At the very least, I do appreciate that, at my request, it was clarified that the aesthetic requirements, which must be published in advance, must be objective.

I am also concerned that by setting application and recurring fees that are presumed to be reasonable, the Commission is inviting localities to adopt these rates, even if they are not cost based. Providers should be explicitly provided the right to challenge these rates if they believe they are not cost based. Even if not stated, I hope that providers will challenge unreasonable rates. I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my edits that the application fee presumption applies to all non-recurring costs, not just the application fee.

Further, I think there should be a process and standards in place if a locality decides that it needs more time to review batched applications. Objective criteria are needed regarding what are considered “exceptional circumstances” or “exceptional cases” warranting a longer review period for batch processing, when localities need to inform the applicant that they need more time, how this notification will occur, and how much time they will get. For instance, the item appears to excuse a locality that does not act within the shot clocks for any application if there are “extraordinary circumstances,” but there are no parameters on what circumstances we are envisioning. Is a lack of adequate staff or having processing rules or policies in place a sufficient excuse? Such things should be determined upfront, as opposed to allowing courts to decide such matters. Without further clarity, I fear that we may be creating unnecessary loopholes, resulting in further delay.

Finally, I would have liked today’s item to be broader and cover the remaining infrastructure issues in the record. First, the Commission’s new interpretation of sections 253 and 332 applies beyond small cells. While our focus has been on these newer technologies, there needs to be a recognition that macro towers will continue to play a crucial role in wireless networks. One tower provider states that “[m]acro cell sites will continue to be a central component of wireless infrastructure . . . ,” because 80 [percent] of the population lives in suburban or rural areas where “macro sites are the most efficient way

109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 to transmit wireless signals.”1 Further, many of the interpretations in today’s item apply not only to these macro towers, but also to other telecommunications services, including those provided by traditional wireline carriers and potentially cable companies.

Second, the Commission needs to close loopholes in section 6409 that some localities have been exploiting. While these rules pertaining to the modification of existing structures are clear, some localities are trying to undermine Congress’s intent and our actions. For instance, localities are refusing ancillary permissions, such as building or highway permits, to slow down or prevent siting; using the localities’ concealment and aesthetic additions to increase the size of the facility or requiring that poles be replaced with stealth infrastructure for the purpose of excluding facilities from section 6409; placing improper conditions on permits; and forcing providers to sign agreements that waive their rights under section 6409. And, I have been told that some are claiming that section 6409 does not apply to their siting processes. This must stop. I appreciate the Chairman’s firm commitment to my request for an additional item to address such matters, and I expect that it will be coming in the very near future.

Third, there is a need to harmonize our rules regarding compound expansion. Currently, an entity seeking to replace a structure is allowed to expand the facility’s footprint by 30 feet, but if the same entity seeks to expand the tower area to hold new equipment associated with a collocation, a new review is needed. It doesn’t make sense that these situations are treated differently. And while we are at it, the Commission should also harmonize its shot clocks and remedies. These issues should also be added to any future item.

Lastly, the Commission also must finish its review of the comments filed in response to the twilight towers notice, make the revisions to the program comment, and submit it to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for their review and vote. These towers are eligible, yet not permitted, to hold an estimated 6,500 collocations that will be needed for next-generation services and FirstNet. It is time to bring this embarrassment, which started in 2001, to an end.

Not only do I thank the Chairman for agreeing to additional infrastructure items, but I also thank the Chairman and Commissioner Carr for implementing several of my edits to the item today. Besides those already mentioned, they include applying the aesthetic criteria, including that any requirements must be reasonable, objective, and published in advance, to undergrounding; stating that undergrounding requirements that apply to some, but not all facilities, will be considered an effective prohibition if they materially inhibit wireless service; and adding similar language to the minimum spacing section of the item. Further, the minimum spacing requirements will not apply to replacement facilities or prevent collocations on existing structures. Additionally, localities claiming that an application is incomplete will need to specifically state what rule requires the submission of the missing information.

With this, I approve.

1 American Tower Ex Parte Letter, WT Docket No. 17-79, n.6 (Aug. 10, 2018). 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR

Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84

The United States is on the cusp of a major upgrade in wireless technology to 5G. The WALL STREET JOURNAL has called it transformative from a technological and economic perspective. And they’re right. Winning the global race to 5G—seeing this new platform deployed in the U.S. first—is about economic leadership for the next decade. Those are the stakes, and here’s how we know it.

Think back ten years ago when we were on the cusp of upgrading from 3G to 4G. Think about the largest stocks and some of the biggest drivers of our economy. It was big banks and big oil. Fast forward to today: U.S.-based technology companies, from FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) down to the latest startup, have transformed our economy and our lives.

Think about your own life. A decade ago, catching a ride across town involved calling a phone number, waiting 20 minutes for a cab to arrive, and paying rates that were inaccessible to many people. Today, we have Lyft, Uber, Via, and other options.

A decade ago, sending money meant going to a brick-and-mortar bank, standing in that rope line, getting frustrated when that pen leashed to the table was out of ink (again!), and ultimately conducting your transaction with a teller. Now, with Square, Venmo, and other apps you can send money or deposit checks from anywhere, 24 hours a day.

A decade ago, taking a road trip across the country meant walking into your local AAA office, telling them the stops along your way, and waiting for them to print out a TripTik booklet filled with maps that you would unfold as you drove down the highway. Now, with Google Maps and other apps you get real-time updates and directions right on your smartphone.

American companies led the way in developing these 4G innovations. But it’s not by chance or luck that the United States is the world’s tech and innovation hub. We have the strongest wireless economy in the world because we won the race to 4G. No country had faster 4G deployment and more intense investment than we did. Winning the race to 4G added $100 billion to our GDP. It led to $125 billion in revenue for U.S. companies that could have gone abroad. It grew wireless jobs in the U.S. by 84 percent. And our world-leading 4G networks now support today’s $950 billion app economy. That history should remind policymakers at all levels of government exactly what is at stake. 5G is about our leadership for the next decade.

And being first matters. It determines whether capital will flow here, whether innovators will start their new businesses here, and whether the economy that benefits is the one here. Or as Deloitte put it: “First-adopter countries . . . could sustain more than a decade of competitive advantage.”

We’re not the only country that wants to be first to 5G. One of our biggest competitors is China. They view 5G as a chance to flip the script. They want to lead the tech sector for the next decade. And they are moving aggressively to deploy the infrastructure needed for 5G.

Since 2015, China has deployed 350,000 cell sites. We’ve built fewer than 30,000. Right now, China is deploying 460 cell sites a day. That is twelve times our pace. We have to be honest about this infrastructure challenge. The time for empty statements about carrots and sticks is over. We need a concrete plan to close the gap with China and win the race to 5G.

111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

We take this challenge seriously at the FCC. And we are getting the government out of the way, so that the private sector can invest and compete.

In March, we held that small cells should be treated differently than large, 200-foot towers. And we’re already seeing results. That decision cut $1.5 billion in red tape, and one provider reports that it is now clearing small cells for construction at six times the pace as before.

So we’re making progress in closing the infrastructure gap with China. But hurdles remain. We’ve heard from dozens of mayors, local officials, and state lawmakers who get what 5G means—they understand the economic opportunity that comes with it. But they worry that the billions in investment needed to deploy these networks will be consumed by the high fees and long delays imposed by big, “must-serve” cities. They worry that, without federal action, they may not see 5G. I’d like to read from a few of the many comments I’ve received over the last few months.

Duane Ankney is a retired coal miner from Montana with a handlebar mustache that would be the envy of nearly any hipster today. But more relevantly, he’s a Member of the Montana State Legislature and chairs its Energy and Telecommunications Committee. He writes: “Where I see the problem is, that most of investment capital is spent in the larger urban areas. This is primarily due to the high regulatory cost and the cost recovery [that] can be made in those areas. This leaves the rural areas out.”

Mary Whisenand, an Iowa commissioner, writes: “With 99 counties in Iowa, we understand the need to streamline the network buildout process so it’s not just the big cities that get 5G but also our small towns. If companies are tied up with delays and high fees, it’s going to take that much longer for each and every Iowan to see the next generation of connectivity.”

Ashton Hayward, the Mayor of Pensacola, Florida, writes: “[E]xcessive and arbitrary fees . . . result[] in nothing more than telecom providers being required to spend limited investment dollars on fees as opposed to spending those limited resources on the type of high-speed infrastructure that is so important in our community.”

And the entire board of commissioners from a more rural area in Michigan writes: “Smaller communities such as those located in St. Clair County would benefit by having the [FCC] reduce the costly and unnecessary fees that some larger communities place on small cells as a condition of deployment. These fees, wholly disproportionate to any cost, put communities like ours at an unfair disadvantage. By making small cell deployment less expensive, the FCC will send a clear message that all communities, regardless of size, should share in the benefits of this crucial new technology.”

They’re right. When I think about success—when I think about winning the race to 5G—the finish line is not the moment we see next-gen deployments in New York or San Francisco. Success can only be achieved when all Americans, no matter where they live, have a fair shot at fast, affordable broadband.

So today, we build on the smart infrastructure policies championed by state and local leaders. We ensure that no city is subsidizing 5G. We prevent excessive fees that would threaten 5G deployment. And we update our shot clocks to account for new small cell deployments. I want to thank Commissioner Rosenworcel for improving the new shot clocks with edits that protect municipalities from providers that submit incomplete applications and provide localities with more time to adjust their operations. Her ideas improved this portion of the order.

More broadly, our decision today has benefited from the diverse views expressed by a range of stakeholders. On the local government side, I met with mayors, city planners, and other officials in their home communities and learned from their perspectives. They pushed back on the proposed “deemed

112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 granted” remedy, on regulating rents on their property outside of rights-of-way, and on limits to reasonable aesthetic reviews. They reminded me that they’re the ones that get pulled aside at the grocery store when an unsightly small cell goes up. Their views carried the day on all of those points. And our approach respects the compromises reached in state legislatures around the country by not preempting nearly any of the provisions in the 20 state level small cells bills.

This is a balanced approach that will help speed the deployment of 5G. Right now, there is a cottage industry of consultants spurring lawsuits and disputes in courtrooms and city halls around the country over the scope of Sections 253 and 332. With this decision, we provide clear and updated guidance, which will eliminate the uncertainty inspiring much of that litigation.

Some have also argued that we unduly limit local aesthetic reviews. But allowing reasonable aesthetic reviews—and thus only preventing unreasonable ones—does not strike me as a claim worth lodging.

And some have asked whether this reform will make a real difference in speeding 5G deployment and closing the digital divide. The answer is yes. It will cut $2 billion in red tape. That’s about $8,000 in savings per small cell. Cutting these costs changes the prospects for communities that might otherwise get left behind. It will stimulate $2.4 billion in new small cell deployments. That will cover 1.8 million more homes and businesses—97% of which are in rural and suburban communities. That is more broadband for more Americans.

* * *

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for working to put these ideas in place. I want to thank Chairman Pai for his leadership in removing these regulatory barriers. And I want to recognize the exceptionally hard-working team at the FCC that helped lead this effort, including, in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Donald Stockdale, Suzanne Tetrault, Garnet Hanly, Jonathan Campbell, Stacy Ferraro, Leon Jackler, Eli Johnson, Jonathan Lechter, Marcus Maher, Betsy McIntyre, Darrel Pae, Jennifer Salhus, Jiaming Shang, and David Sieradzki. I also want to thank the team in the Office of General Counsel, including Tom Johnson, Ashley Boizelle, Bill Richardson, and Anjali Singh.

113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84

A few years ago, in a speech at a University of Colorado event, I called on the Federal Communications Commission to start a proceeding on wireless infrastructure reform. I suggested that if we want broad economic growth and widespread mobile opportunity, we need to avoid unnecessary delays in the state and local approval process. That’s because they can slow deployment.

I believed that then. I still believe it now.

So when the FCC kicked off a rulemaking on wireless infrastructure last year, I had hopes. I hoped we could provide a way to encourage streamlined service deployment nationwide. I hoped we could acknowledge that we have a long tradition of local control in this country but also recognize more uniform policies across the country will help us in the global race to build the next generation of wireless service, known as 5G. Above all, I hoped we could speed infrastructure deployment by recognizing the best way to do so is to treat cities and states as our partners.

In one respect, today’s order is consistent with that vision. We shorten the time frames permitted under the law for state and local review of the deployment of small cells—an essential part of 5G networks. I think this is the right thing to do because the shot clocks we have now were designed in an earlier era for much bigger wireless facilities. At the same time, we retain the right of state and local authorities to pursue court remedies under Section 332 of the Communications Act. This strikes an appropriate balance. I appreciate that my colleagues were willing to work with me to ensure that localities have time to update their processes to accommodate these new deadlines and that they are not unfairly prejudiced by incomplete applications. I support this aspect of today’s order.

But in the remainder of this decision, my hopes did not pan out. Instead of working with our state and local partners to speed the way to 5G deployment, we cut them out. We tell them that going forward Washington will make choices for them—about which fees are permissible and which are not, about what aesthetic choices are viable and which are not, with complete disregard for the fact that these infrastructure decisions do not work the same in New York, New York and New York, Iowa. So it comes down to this: three unelected officials on this dais are telling state and local leaders all across the country what they can and cannot do in their own backyards. This is extraordinary federal overreach.

I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like this and I worry the litigation that follows will only slow our 5G future. For starters, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not expressly granted to the federal government. In other words, the constitution sets up a system of dual sovereignty that informs all of our laws. To this end, Section 253 balances the interests of state and local authorities with this agency’s responsibility to expand the reach of communications service. While Section 253(a) is concerned with state and local requirements that may prohibit or effectively prohibit service, Section 253(d) permits preemption only on a case-by-case basis after notice and comment. We do not do that here. Moreover, the assertion that fees above cost or local aesthetic requirements in a single city are tantamount to a service prohibition elsewhere stretches the statute beyond what Congress intended and legal precedent affords.

In addition, this decision irresponsibly interferes with existing agreements and ongoing deployment across the country. There are thousands of cities and towns with agreements for infrastructure deployment—including 5G wireless facilities—that were negotiated in good faith. So 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133 many of them could be torn apart by our actions here. If we want to encourage investment, upending commitments made in binding contracts is a curious way to go.

Take San Jose, California. Earlier this year it entered into agreements with three providers for the largest small cell-driven broadband deployment of any city in the United States. These partnerships would lead to 4,000 small cells on city-owned light poles and more than $500 million of private sector investment. Or take Little Rock, Arkansas, where local reforms to the permitting process have put it on course to become one of the first cities to benefit from 5G service. Or take Troy, Ohio. This town of under 26,000 spent time and energy to develop streamlined procedures to govern the placement, installation, and maintenance of small cell facilities in the community. Or take Austin, Texas. It has been experimenting with smart city initiatives to improve transportation and housing availability. As part of this broader effort, it started a pilot project to deploy small cells and has secured agreements with multiple providers.

This declaratory ruling has the power to undermine these agreements—and countless more just like them. In fact, too many municipalities to count—from Omaha to Overland Park, Cincinnati to Chicago and Los Angeles to Louisville—have called on the FCC to halt this federal invasion of local authority. The National Governors Association and National Conference of State Legislatures have asked us to stop before doing this damage. This sentiment is shared by the United States Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and Government Finance Officers Association. In other words, every major state and municipal organization has expressed concern about how Washington is seeking to assert national control over local infrastructure choices and stripping local elected officials and the citizens they represent of a voice in the process.

Yet cities and states are told to not worry because with these national policies wireless providers will save as much as $2 billion in costs which will spur deployment in rural areas. But comb through the text of this decision. You will not find a single commitment made to providing more service in remote communities. Look for any statements made to Wall Street. Not one wireless carrier has said that this action will result in a change in its capital expenditures in rural areas. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “trust but verify.” You can try to find it here, but there is no verification. That’s because the hard economics of rural deployment do not change with this decision. Moreover, the asserted $2 billion in cost savings represents no more than 1 percent of investment needed for next-generation networks.

It didn’t have to be this way. So let me offer three ideas to consider going forward.

First, we need to acknowledge we have a history of local control in this country but also recognize that more uniform policies can help us be first to the future. Here’s an idea: Let’s flip the script and build a new framework. We can start with developing model codes for small cell and 5G deployment—but we need to make sure they are supported by a wide range of industry and state and local officials. Then we need to review every policy and program—from universal service to grants and low- cost loans at the Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Transportation and build in incentives to use these models. In the process, we can create a more common set of practices nationwide. But to do so, we would use carrots instead of sticks.

Second, this agency needs to own up to the impact of our trade policies on 5G deployment. In this decision we go on at length about the cost of local review but are eerily silent when it comes to the consequences of new national tariffs on network deployment. As a result of our escalating trade war with China, by the end of this year we will have a 25 percent duty on antennas, switches, and routers—the essential network facilities needed for 5G deployment. That’s a real cost and there is no doubt it will diminish our ability to lead the world in the deployment of 5G.

115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-133

Finally, in this decision the FCC treats the challenge of small cell deployment with a bias toward more regulation from Washington rather than more creative marketplace solutions. But what if instead we focused our efforts on correcting the market failure at issue? What if instead of micromanaging costs we fostered competition? One innovative way to do this involves dusting off our 20-year old over-the- air-reception-device rules, or OTARD rules.

Let me explain. The FCC’s OTARD rules were designed to protect homeowners and renters from laws that restricted their ability to set up television and broadcast antennas on private property. In most cases they accomplished this by providing a right to install equipment on property you control—and this equipment for video reception was roughly the size of a pizza box.

Today OTARD rules do not contemplate 5G deployment and small cells. But we could change that by clarifying our rules. If we did, a lot of benefits would follow. By creating more siting options for small cells, we would put competitive pressure on public rights-of-way, which could bring down fees through competition instead of the government ratemaking my colleagues offer here. Moreover, this approach would create more opportunities for rural deployment by giving providers more siting and backhaul options and creating new use cases for signal boosters. Add this up and you get more competitive, more ubiquitous, and less costly 5G deployment.

We don’t explore these market-based alternatives in today’s decision. We don’t say a thing about the real costs that tariffs impose on our efforts at 5G leadership. And we don’t consider creative incentive-based systems to foster deployment, especially in rural areas.

But above all we neglect the opportunity to recognize what is fundamental: if we want to speed the way for 5G service we need to work with cities and states across the country because they are our partners. For this reason, in critical part, I dissent.

116 ATTACHMENT D

THIRD PARTY CORRESPONDENCE Kelly Clancy

From: Anna Seaman Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf Subject: Prevent 4G and 5G Towers in Moraga

To whom it may concern,

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Sincerely, Anna Seaman Current resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Amanda Malmquist Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:12 AM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: Fwd: Urgent: 4G/5G Small Cell Towers

To: The Moraga Planning Commissioners,

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Will this topic be on the agenda at an upcoming planning commission meeting?

Either way, as a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Sincerely,

Amanda (Malmquist) Conrad Current resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Derek Farmer Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 4:02 PM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: FW: Questions regarding 5G wireless service rollout in Moraga

Kelly – please see correspondence below.

From: Cynthia Battenberg Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 3:18 PM To: Renata Sos Cc: Derek Farmer Subject: RE: Questions regarding 5G wireless service rollout in Moraga

Hi Renata‐

Planning has been fielding inquires and Derek will respond to Mr. Seitler.

Cynthia

From: Renata Sos Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:24 AM To: Cynthia Battenberg Subject: Fwd: Questions regarding 5G wireless service rollout in Moraga

I don’t know if other Council members got this. Can you help with a response?

Thanks R

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Mike Seitler Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:50 PM To: Renata Sos Cc: Amanda Malmquist Subject: Questions regarding 5G wireless service rollout in Moraga

Dear Councilmember Sos,

My name is Mike Seitler and I have been a Moraga resident for over 10 years. I live on Donald Drive with my wife and two young children. I want to start this communication by thanking you up-front for your volunteer service to this wonderful town. I recognize that it is difficult to find time to volunteer and that public service is not always easy. So thanks very much for your willingness to step up and serve.

The purpose of this communication is to see if you can help me and some fellow concerned Moraga citizens understand what the town in doing regarding Federal mandates to accommodate 5G wireless service. The Town of Moraga website indicates

1 “The Town Council gave direction to staff to revise the Town’s wireless Ordinance (Moraga Municipal Code 8.144) to develop aesthetic criteria for the installation of small cell wireless (5G) facilities within the Town in response to the Federal Communications Commission Declaratory Ruling and a Third Report and Order relating to wireless communications issued on September 26, 2018. Revisions to the Town’s Wireless Ordinance will be developed in two stages – one to address aesthetic criteria for 5G facilities and other immediate updates, followed by a comprehensive update to the Town’s Wireless Ordinance to make sure it is consistent with all applicable State and federal laws concerning wireless communications. This latest order significantly impacts the Town’s ability to regulate where facilities are located. Previous regulations have prohibited jurisdictions’ ability to regulate based on health impacts from wireless facilities. View Moraga Municipal Code 8.144. “

Here are my questions based on the above: 1. What did the FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order mandate? 2. Do I understand correctly that paid town staff are revising the Moraga Ordinances to accommodate this? Are they doing this in conjunction with any elected/appointed town officials and with outside counsel? 3. Can ordinary citizens be a part of this revision process? 4. I understand that Moraga is prohibited per Federal law from regulating the location of the wireless communication facilities based on potential health effects, but obviously there are other potential affects that these facilities have on the town: depressing real estate values of specific homes, aesthetics, health consequences to wildlife, interference with other home electronic devices including medical devices, etc. What is your position on these issues? 5. What is the position of the other council members regarding these issues? 6. Have you been in communication with other towns that have pushed back against this Federal mandate?

In the next few days I will be meeting with a group of other concerned Moraga residents. We love this town. It’s a special place. We want to keep it safe for all our children. I hope you can provide some answers that I can share with my neighbors. Thanks in advance for your response.

Respectfully,

Mike Seitler

2 Kelly Clancy

From: Maura Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:06 PM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf Subject: IMPORTANT

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern, We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Orinda, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Orinda or Lamorinda. Sincerely, Maura Aars Current resident of Lamorinda (Orinda)

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Amy Pacio Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:18 PM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf Subject: No to 5G Cell Towers in Moraga (all of Lamorinda)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern,

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Sincerely, Amy Pacio and family Current residents of Moraga 32 Carr Drive, Mroaga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Renee Bagley Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:46 PM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: 4G/ 5G small cell towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I am aware of the serious and adverse safety, privacy and value impacts caused by 4g and 5g small cell towers.

As a resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these antennas in residential areas and near schools.

Regards,

Renée Bagley

Renee Bagley [email protected] 925-876-6407

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Melissa Griffiths Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:12 AM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf; [email protected] Subject: 5G Cell Towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To Whom It May Concern:

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

As a resident of Lamorinda, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in the residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Melissa Griffiths Current resident of Orinda

‐‐ Melissa Griffiths (415) 297‐7784

1 Kelly Clancy

From: A.J. Brown Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 9:38 AM To: Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Marty McInturf; Teresa Onoda Subject: 5G towers...please no!

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To those charged with the well being of our community,

As the mother of a child in remission from a cancer that no ones knows how or why it occurs, and with recurring melanomas myself, and as a business owner in Moraga with 400 local children as my customers, I cannot express strongly enough my dread about 5G towers coming to Moraga. It seems, at best, incredibly risky. Continuous exposure to low level radiation is never a good thing, especially for children. Please consider the long term health of our community against faster connection speeds. Technology is not always a good thing. If nothing else, please take into account the negative effect on our property values.

In gratitude,

AJ Brown General Manager, CAPA Moraga resident 1972‐1993; 2012 ‐ present

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Tara Rochlin Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:58 PM To: Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Marty McInturf Subject: AGAINST 4g and 5g small Cell Towers in Moraga

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I have strong health and safety concerns about allowing 4g and 5g small Cell Towers and I urge you to prevent the installation of these antennas in our town.

Thank you, Tara Rochlin

‐‐

Tara Rochlin, Broker Compass CA DRE#01330630

3595 Mount Diablo Blvd., Suite 200 Lafayette, CA 94549 925.586.3442 (cell) www.TaraRochlin.com https://www.facebook.com/TaraRochlinCompass/ on Instagram: @tararochlin_broker

NEW YORK | BROOKLYN | EAST HAMPTON | BRIDGEHAMPTON | SOUTHAMPTON | SAG HARBOR | WASHINGTON DC | CHEVY CHASE | ARLINGTON | MCLEAN | BOSTON | CAMBRIDGE | MIAMI | COCONUT GROVE | BEVERLY HILLS | MALIBU | PASADENA | MONTECITO | SANTA BARBARA | BASALT | ASPEN | SAN FRANCISCO | NEWPORT BEACH | NAPLES | LAMORINDA

Note: Neither we nor Compass California have verified any of the information provided by others.

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Jo Anne Smoot Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:42 AM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: Prevent 4g and 5g cell towers in Moraga

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

As a resident of Moraga I want to register my request that you prevent the installation of 4g and 5g small cell towers in our town. I am aware of the safety, fire‐safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by these towers and I am extremely uncomfortable with these towers/antennas being close to both residential areas and near schools.

I respectfully request you prevent these towers from being built in our town.

Thank you.

Jo Anne Smoot 124 Tharp Drive Moraga, CA 94556 415.203.3528

‐‐ ************NOTE******************* Please note my new email address: [email protected]. Please update your address book.

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Allen Smoot Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 11:22 AM To: Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Marty McInturf Subject: 4 G and 5 G Towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hi‐

As a resident of Moraga, I would like to register my request to prevent the installation of 4g and 5g small cell towers in our town. I am fully aware of the safety, fire‐safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by these towers and I am extremely uncomfortable with these towers/antennas being close to both residential areas and near schools.

I respectfully request you prevent these towers from being built in our town.

See link on 5g safety from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, from UC Berkeley: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

Kind regards,

Al

Allen Smoot 124 Tharp Drive Moraga, CA 94556 415.518.0163

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Amanda Malmquist Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 6:02 PM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller; 2019 at 9:03 AM Ellen Marks Subject: 5G Issue- attn: Moraga Town Council and Moraga Planning Committee Attachments: Letter to Moraga Town Council.docx; Health Risks of Cell Towers- SaferEMR.docx; International_EMF_Scientist-Appeal.pdf; US Cities Example UO's.docx; IAFF Letter on Cell Towers.pdf; Letter-to-Seb-Verizon-5G.pdf; NIH Study - High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Moraga Planning Commission and Moraga Town Council Representatives,

I am a third generation Lamorinda homeowner and resident: My parents still live in Moraga in the home I grew up in, and my husband and I recently moved to Moraga last year with our 1.5 year old son Zachary. Recently, I have become aware that telecommunications companies are planning to place new 5G “small cell” towers throughout our communities, and I’m concerned about many aspects of this rollout, including serious risks these new small cell towers pose to our health (with children and the elderly being most vulnerable). The more I learn on this subject, the more questions and concerns I have, and I understand that the FCC has really tied our hands on this issue, and that we, as a community, are running out of time to put some limitations on where and how these new cell towers will be deployed.

I understand that there are efforts to silence critics in the form of “gag orders” to prevent protests against 5G on the premise of health concerns. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are very real health concerns including: brain cancer, lymphoma, tumors, childhood leukemia, changes in sleep patterns and disruption of REM type sleep, headaches, neurologic changes, cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases), decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time, learning disabilities, increased blood pressure, and damage to eye cells. These are all outcomes due to RF and MW radiation that have been proven and documented. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the FCC has let these private wireless companies off the hook for liability of medical issues as a result of these towers. My goal is to share with you the evidence I have found: the documented proof of significant health risk as a result of electromagnetic frequency radiation, so that you can construct a responsible policy for the rollout of 5G/small cell towers in Moraga that protects our community. Ultimately, since the FCC has absolved the telecom industry of liability for health issues, the city would be the responsible party if residents get sick as a result of these small cell towers so these regulations would also help protect the city from citizen lawsuits.

A responsible policy would first and foremost state that that no Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna - Wireless Telecommunications Facility (CPMRA-WTF) or related equipment is placed in residential areas- there should be a minimum distance of at least 1,500 feet away from the closest residence since residences are where people live, sleep, and heal. The data shows that proximity is a huge factor in risk due to EMF Radiation. It isn’t until 1500 ft away from the source, that the health risks of exposure equal the risk pool of the general public. Additionally, due to the fact that children and the elderly have been shown to be most vulnerable to the effects of RF/MW radiation, there should also be protections in place to prevent placement within 1500 ft of schools, hospitals, spaces that cater to children or elderly, infant/child/or elder care facilities, etc.

I feel lucky to have grown up in Moraga: a safe small town, with beautiful natural landscape, great schools, and wonderful neighbors. The 5G wireless implementation could destroy all of the best parts of Moraga, and that

1 would be a real tragedy. I appreciate your careful consideration of this issue, and as a constituent, I ask that you collectively put your foot down: don’t compromise the values of our community for the benefit of a wealthy industry that is gambling with our health- My son is only a year and a half, but when he's older, I would like for him to be grateful that he grew up in Moraga, too.

Please see all attached documents for information (with cited proof sources) I have gathered on this issue. I would like all this information to be recognized as part of the town record. Thank you!

Amanda (Malmquist) Conrad [email protected] (925)360-0442

5G technology is unnecessarily obtrusive to our communities- the quantity of towers required to provide ample coverage is way higher than previous generations of cell towers. Therefore, even if areas have been identitified that need better wireless coverage, 5G is not the most inobtrusive way to accomplish this https://whatis5g.info/5g/2018/01/how-many-5g-cell-towers-coming-verizon-discloses-numbers/ “…for Palo Alto: Verizon initially plans 93 4G LTE utility pole cell towers. Plus 930 5G Verizon cell towers = over 1000 new Verizon cell towers in Palo Alto. That’s for Verizon 5G alone. Then you need to factor in the other companies that will also want to “play ball” – T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T, at a minimum, with other regional players wanting in as well. Each of these will likely want to stake out similar cellular “real estate” for themselves. Will that mean 4X, 5X, 6X the number of separate 5G cell towers? And how many will “collocate” — load their cell tower gear on the same utility pole with another carrier, further overloading it? No one can predict how many more towers this will result in, but either way – new tower for each company or collocation – the RF will increase exponentially with 5G. Communities in California and other states are rolling out these utility pole cell towers now. Once a precedent is set, and one wireless carrier gets into an area, the 4G/5G expansion will be extremely difficult to stop. The time to stop/regulate these is now.”

Negative impacts on the health of humans and wildlife: 5G technology is completely untested and while there is no data that shows it is safe, there is plenty of data that suggests it is not. Citizens aren’t the only ones asking questions- Congress Members Blumenthal (CT) and Eshoo (CA) have questioned FCC regarding 5G and asked for proof (December 2018) it is safe but so far no response: https://mdsafetech.org/2018/12/31/5g-safety-questioned-by-congress-members-blumenthal-and-eshoo/ “Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018… The dense network of 5G antennas on every street and every 3 to 5 houses poses a risk to humans and wildlife as the signaling is complex using beam forming and phased array technology. 5G does not penetrate deeply through the body as current wireless technologies but does penetrate the skin. Ms. Levitt underscores that thin skinned amphibians and insects will be most affected by this technology with potentially disastrous results. She warns that it is not the power density or tissue absorption but the signaling characteristics that are harmful with damage even at low power levels. In addition, she emphasizes that there are inadequate protective regulations for chronic human exposures for current wireless frequencies and no oversight for wildlife or the environment. She concludes that “The FCC is completely unprepared, unable and possibly unwilling to oversee 5G for safety, even at it barrels toward us.” Link to actual letter: https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Blumenthal-Eshoo-to-FCC-Carr-5G-Safety-Dec- 2018.pdf

2 “Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio- effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property.” https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “There’s already too much harmful wireless radiation in our environment. People are already getting sick from wi-fi, cell towers, smart meters and cell phones. Peer reviewed published science shows harmful effects of cell tower radiation include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Studies found wireless radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. (See links to studies in this letter.) 5G would use a combination of microwaves and millimeter waves, which are scientifically shown to harm people and nature. For a quick overview of the problem see this video of a press conference with U.S. senator Blumenthal, who demands proof of safety from the FCC, and listen to comments by Blake Levitt. For more information on 5G see What is 5G? This Letter to Sebastopol 5G includes studies and quotes on the harmful health effects of 5G. See also: Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation and www.emfscientist.org Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter waves adversely affect health https://goo.gl/gbBKHL More studies here. See also: EU 5G Appeal. International Society of Doctors for Environment 5G Appeal Democracy Now reported on an investigation by The Nation “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.” and “How Big Wireless War-Gamed the Science on Risks, While Making Customers Addicted to Their Phones””

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/ “5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms. Second, the shorter length millimeter waves (MMV) used in 5G do not travel as far or through objects. This means with our current number of cell towers the cell signal will not be reliable. To compensate many more mini cell towers must be installed. It is estimated that they will need a mini cell tower every 2 to 8 houses. This will greatly increase our exposure.” http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/ 2017- Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commision demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “A 2011 article in IEEE Spectrum says that for the World Heath Organization, a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries reviewed the latest research and classified RF electromagnetic fields — from any source — as Group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer." Citing Studies completed from 2011 to 2018, Dr. Lennart Hardell and other members from that committee are calling to change RF Microwave radiation to Group 1 — a definite human . More here.”

3 If 5G towers are allowed in residential neighborhoods, People with EMS would no longer be safe in their own homes. EMS is a condition recognized internationally by the World Health Organization and by the US government https://www.electrosmogprevention.org/smart-meter-resources-links/ada-accommodations-info/recognition-of- the-electromagnetic-sensitivity-as-a-disability-under-the-ada/ Electromagnetic Sensitivity is recognized by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and therefore employers are required to provide accommodation. It is estimated that upwards of 2.5% of the population suffers from some level of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS)- with ~10% of cases categorized as severe. In November 1999 the Access Board (the Federal agency devoted to the accessibility for people with disabilities) issued a proposed rule to revise and update its accessibility guidelines that included EMS as a disability and therefore a protected class. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html Firefighters have already (successfully) lobbied to ensure cell towers will not be placed at fire stations: “The last CA Cell Tower bill to pass was CA Assembly Bill 57 in 2015, which granted an exemption to fire stations because the Firefighter's Unions entered substantial evidence into the public record that cell towers on or near fire stations caused brain abnormalities in every firefighter examined”

More information on the evidence of harm to firefighters exposed to cell tower radiation from tower on department property, and their subsequent (successful) lobby for exemption from SB649- Here are links to the Firefighter study, FCC testimony regarding it and a letter from the International Firefighters Union. Links to the study data from 2004: https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0014.xml https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0027.pdf Link to the FCC Testimony regarding the evidence from 2004: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022117660.pdf Link to letter from International Firefighters Union further validating health risk and reasons for exemption from SB649: http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer-risk-bills-in- these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The International Association of Firefighters opposes cell towers on fire stations after experiencing health problems like headaches, memory issues, confusion, and weakness. Dr. Gunnar Heuser conducted a study on these firefighters and saw that their brain scans showed cell damage even from low-level RF. “We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said. The California bill put fire stations exempt from cell towers, but not because they accepted the health concerns — because firefighters have a strong lobbying force. Unfortunately, for school and for residential neighborhoods, this is not the type of power they have” https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/ “Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:  DNA single and double strand breaks  oxidative damage  disruption of cell metabolism  increased blood brain barrier permeability  melatonin reduction  disruption to brain glucose metabolism  generation of stress proteins Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.” https://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-tower-cause-cancer-children-1362314

4 Ripon, CA: cluster of cancer cases in children who live near and/or attend elementary school that has a cell tower on school property.

Legislation Concerns- Communities successfully fighting back Not only is Federal (and many States’) legislation strong-arming communities and essentially forcing them to accept 5G implementation, but there are no relevant controls in place for our protection/to regulate the industry with regard to 5G. The current standard for safety was enacted in the 90’s and therefore completely irrelevant to the potential harm of this new tech. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “The Federal Communications Commission and the federal government have been promoting and supporting rapid expansion of 5G. Some states have already passed laws forcing them onto communities. However people are pushing back and defeating installations. In Hillsborough California 16 cell towers were denied. Danville CA denied Verizon based on the placement was not the least intrusive means. In California SB649, which would have restricted cities ability to regulate 5G, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. The industry vision for 5G is to enable the Internet of Things, Smart Communities, driverless cars (and more), where roads and appliances (even baby diapers!) are embedded with wireless radiation transmitters that connect to cell phones, smart meters and the internet. The industry wants wireless everywhere with “small cell” towers every couple hundred feet apart! That means cell towers in our neighborhoods, near schools and parks, where we live, work and play.”

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is outdated, based on obsolete technology, and gives the power to telecom companies: https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer-risk-bills-in- these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The Telecommunication Act made sure the cell phone companies are protected, that’s for sure. The act was written based on what many call outdated science from 1996 outlining that if cities consider cell towers’ health effects, the cell company can sue them” http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “Governor Brown vetoed California's 2017 Small Cell Bill (Senate Bill 649), so, fortunately, all California cities retained their authority to regulate the operations of cell phone towers to protect residents' constitutionally-guaranteed rights to privacy and safety. Densified 4G and 5G cell towers installed at the curb sacrifices privacy because once the pole is claimed, wireless cos. or government entities can install whatever they want on the pole: video cameras, listening devices, or microwave devices that can image the interiors of homes. More here.”

“Increased Fire Risk: The heavy and bulky “Small Cell Facilities” could overload telephone poles, leading to increased fire risk. For example, Edison and four telecommunication companies were fined for overloading utility poles with antennas and equipment, which caused the poles to collapse and spark the 2007 Malibu Canyon wildfire.”

Beyond Wireless: Instead of diving in head first to 5G which involves destruction of our environment, risk to our health, compromise of our privacy, and will obscure the beautiful aesthetics of our community, I propose we pursue more sustainable, secure, long term options like fiber optic cable. Californian’s have already paid for this via additional fees charged in the 90’s on their phone bills- the backbone of this cable has already been laid in California and is literally waiting for someone to use it. The City of Nicasio has chosen to invest in fiber optic cable for their citizens thru this public/private partnership, giving their residents, safer, faster, more dependable and secure internet access than any wireless technology could provide: https://www.marincounty.org/main/county-press-releases/press-releases/2018/ist-broadbandwestmarin- 112918 http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html

5 “We need to halt this ill-advised Wireless-only project and enter into a public process that delivers the least intrusive means to get the fastest, most reliable and energy-efficient Internet access (Wireline fiber- optic service to our homes — without data caps) and to put any new Wireless antennas much farther away from our homes. Cell phone towers installed close to homes significantly reduces property values. A peer- reviewed study in the 2005 Appraisal Journal, said homes near cell phone towers are devalued 20% to 25%.” http://scientists4wiredtech.com/ “We seek to keep all residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and wilderness areas as free as possible from RF/MW radiation exposures. This starts by recognizing the long-con at the root the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the series of FCC regulations passed in the last 20 years that forces down communities’ throats too many unnecessary and redundant wireless networks that deprive many of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without unreasonable government surveillance, intrusion into our homes and forced exposures to a known toxic agent, RF/MW radiation, that has been proven to cause two forms of cancer, DNA damage and other adverse biological effects….. Fiber-optic networks enable data transmissions that are much faster, more reliable, safe for humans and other living organisms, and far more secure from cyber and physical attack when compared to any wireless network which relies on sending data via pulsed, microwave radiation (Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G). In addition, fiber-optic cables use only a fraction of the energy required by wireless networks.

6 Dear Moraga Planning Commission and Moraga Town Council Representatives, I am a third generation Lamorinda homeowner and resident: My parents still live in Moraga in the home I grew up in, and my husband and I recently moved to Moraga last year with our 1.5 year old son Zachary. Recently, I have become aware that telecommunications companies are planning to place new 5G “small cell” towers throughout our communities, and I’m concerned about many aspects of this rollout, including serious risks these new small cell towers pose to our health (with children and the elderly being most vulnerable). The more I learn on this subject, the more questions and concerns I have, and I understand that the FCC has really tied our hands on this issue, and that we, as a community, are running out of time to put some limitations on where and how these new cell towers will be deployed. I understand that there are efforts to silence critics in the form of “gag orders” to prevent protests against 5G on the premise of health concerns. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are very real health concerns including: brain cancer, lymphoma, tumors, childhood leukemia, changes in sleep patterns and disruption of REM type sleep, headaches, neurologic changes, cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases), decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time, learning disabilities, increased blood pressure, and damage to eye cells. These are all outcomes due to RF and MW radiation that have been proven and documented. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the FCC has let these private wireless companies off the hook for liability of medical issues as a result of these towers. My goal is to share with you the evidence I have found: the documented proof of significant health risk as a result of electromagnetic frequency radiation, so that you can construct a responsible policy for the rollout of 5G/small cell towers in Moraga that protects our community. Ultimately, since the FCC has absolved the telecom industry of liability for health issues, the city would be the responsible party if residents get sick as a result of these small cell towers so these regulations would also help protect the city from citizen lawsuits.

A responsible policy would first and foremost state that that no Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna - Wireless Telecommunications Facility (CPMRA-WTF) or related equipment is placed in residential areas- there should be a minimum distance of at least 1,500 feet away from the closest residence since residences are where people live, sleep, and heal. The data shows that proximity is a huge factor in risk due to EMF Radiation. It isn’t until 1500 ft away from the source, that the health risks of exposure equal the risk pool of the general public. Additionally, due to the fact that children and the elderly have been shown to be most vulnerable to the effects of RF/MW radiation, there should also be protections in place to prevent placement within 1500 ft of schools, hospitals, spaces that cater to children or elderly, infant/child/or elder care facilities, etc.

I feel lucky to have grown up in Moraga: a safe small town, with beautiful natural landscape, great schools, and wonderful neighbors. The 5G wireless implementation could destroy all of the best parts of Moraga, and that would be a real tragedy. I appreciate your careful consideration of this issue, and as a constituent, I ask that you collectively put your foot down: don’t compromise the values of our community for the benefit of a wealthy industry that is gambling with our health- I would like my son to be grateful that he grew up in Moraga, too. Please see the following pages for information (with cited proof sources) I have gathered on this issue. Thank you!

Amanda (Malmquist) Conrad [email protected] (925)360-0442 5G technology is unnecessarily obtrusive to our communities- the quantity of towers required to provide ample coverage is way higher than previous generations of cell towers. Therefore, even if areas have been identitified that need better wireless coverage, 5G is not the most inobtrusive way to accomplish this https://whatis5g.info/5g/2018/01/how-many-5g-cell-towers-coming-verizon-discloses-numbers/ “…for Palo Alto: Verizon initially plans 93 4G LTE utility pole cell towers. Plus 930 5G Verizon cell towers = over 1000 new Verizon cell towers in Palo Alto. That’s for Verizon 5G alone. Then you need to factor in the other companies that will also want to “play ball” – T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T, at a minimum, with other regional players wanting in as well. Each of these will likely want to stake out similar cellular “real estate” for themselves. Will that mean 4X, 5X, 6X the number of separate 5G cell towers? And how many will “collocate” — load their cell tower gear on the same utility pole with another carrier, further overloading it? No one can predict how many more towers this will result in, but either way – new tower for each company or collocation – the RF will increase exponentially with 5G. Communities in California and other states are rolling out these utility pole cell towers now. Once a precedent is set, and one wireless carrier gets into an area, the 4G/5G expansion will be extremely difficult to stop. The time to stop/regulate these is now.”

Negative impacts on the health of humans and wildlife: 5G technology is completely untested and while there is no data that shows it is safe, there is plenty of data that suggests it is not. Citizens aren’t the only ones asking questions- Congress Members Blumenthal (CT) and Eshoo (CA) have questioned FCC regarding 5G and asked for proof (December 2018) it is safe but so far no response: https://mdsafetech.org/2018/12/31/5g-safety-questioned-by-congress-members-blumenthal- and-eshoo/ “Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018… The dense network of 5G antennas on every street and every 3 to 5 houses poses a risk to humans and wildlife as the signaling is complex using beam forming and phased array technology. 5G does not penetrate deeply through the body as current wireless technologies but does penetrate the skin. Ms. Levitt underscores that thin skinned amphibians and insects will be most affected by this technology with potentially disastrous results. She warns that it is not the power density or tissue absorption but the signaling characteristics that are harmful with damage even at low power levels. In addition, she emphasizes that there are inadequate protective regulations for chronic human exposures for current wireless frequencies and no oversight for wildlife or the environment. She concludes that “The FCC is completely unprepared, unable and possibly unwilling to oversee 5G for safety, even at it barrels toward us.” Link to actual letter: https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Blumenthal-Eshoo-to-FCC-Carr-5G- Safety-Dec-2018.pdf

“Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property.” https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “There’s already too much harmful wireless radiation in our environment. People are already getting sick from wi-fi, cell towers, smart meters and cell phones. Peer reviewed published science shows harmful effects of cell tower radiation include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Studies found wireless radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. (See links to studies in this letter.) 5G would use a combination of microwaves and millimeter waves, which are scientifically shown to harm people and nature. For a quick overview of the problem see this video of a press conference with U.S. senator Blumenthal, who demands proof of safety from the FCC, and listen to comments by Blake Levitt. For more information on 5G see What is 5G? This Letter to Sebastopol 5G includes studies and quotes on the harmful health effects of 5G. See also: Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation and www.emfscientist.org Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter waves adversely affect health https://goo.gl/gbBKHL More studies here. See also: EU 5G Appeal. International Society of Doctors for Environment 5G Appeal Democracy Now reported on an investigation by The Nation “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.” and “How Big Wireless War-Gamed the Science on Risks, While Making Customers Addicted to Their Phones”” https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/ “5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms. Second, the shorter length millimeter waves (MMV) used in 5G do not travel as far or through objects. This means with our current number of cell towers the cell signal will not be reliable. To compensate many more mini cell towers must be installed. It is estimated that they will need a mini cell tower every 2 to 8 houses. This will greatly increase our exposure.” http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/ 2017- Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commision demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “A 2011 article in IEEE Spectrum says that for the World Heath Organization, a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries reviewed the latest research and classified RF electromagnetic fields — from any source — as Group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer." Citing Studies completed from 2011 to 2018, Dr. Lennart Hardell and other members from that committee are calling to change RF Microwave radiation to Group 1 — a definite human carcinogen. More here.”

If 5G towers are allowed in residential neighborhoods, People with EMS would no longer be safe in their own homes. EMS is a condition recognized internationally by the World Health Organization and by the US government https://www.electrosmogprevention.org/smart-meter-resources-links/ada-accommodations- info/recognition-of-the-electromagnetic-sensitivity-as-a-disability-under-the-ada/ Electromagnetic Sensitivity is recognized by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and therefore employers are required to provide accommodation. It is estimated that upwards of 2.5% of the population suffers from some level of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS)- with ~10% of cases categorized as severe. In November 1999 the Access Board (the Federal agency devoted to the accessibility for people with disabilities) issued a proposed rule to revise and update its accessibility guidelines that included EMS as a disability and therefore a protected class. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html Firefighters have already (successfully) lobbied to ensure cell towers will not be placed at fire stations: “The last CA Cell Tower bill to pass was CA Assembly Bill 57 in 2015, which granted an exemption to fire stations because the Firefighter's Unions entered substantial evidence into the public record that cell towers on or near fire stations caused brain abnormalities in every firefighter examined”

More information on the evidence of harm to firefighters exposed to cell tower radiation from tower on department property, and their subsequent (successful) lobby for exemption from SB649- Here are links to the Firefighter study, FCC testimony regarding it and a letter from the International Firefighters Union. Links to the study data from 2004: https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0014.xml https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0027.pdf Link to the FCC Testimony regarding the evidence from 2004: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022117660.pdf Link to letter from International Firefighters Union further validating health risk and reasons for exemption from SB649: http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer- risk-bills-in-these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The International Association of Firefighters opposes cell towers on fire stations after experiencing health problems like headaches, memory issues, confusion, and weakness. Dr. Gunnar Heuser conducted a study on these firefighters and saw that their brain scans showed cell damage even from low-level RF. “We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said. The California bill put fire stations exempt from cell towers, but not because they accepted the health concerns — because firefighters have a strong lobbying force. Unfortunately, for school and for residential neighborhoods, this is not the type of power they have” https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/ “Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:  DNA single and double strand breaks  oxidative damage  disruption of cell metabolism  increased blood brain barrier permeability  melatonin reduction  disruption to brain glucose metabolism  generation of stress proteins Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.” https://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-tower-cause-cancer-children-1362314 Ripon, CA: cluster of cancer cases in children who live near and/or attend elementary school that has a cell tower on school property.

Legislation Concerns- Communities successfully fighting back Not only is Federal (and many States’) legislation strong-arming communities and essentially forcing them to accept 5G implementation, but there are no relevant controls in place for our protection/to regulate the industry with regard to 5G. The current standard for safety was enacted in the 90’s and therefore completely irrelevant to the potential harm of this new tech. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “The Federal Communications Commission and the federal government have been promoting and supporting rapid expansion of 5G. Some states have already passed laws forcing them onto communities. However people are pushing back and defeating installations. In Hillsborough California 16 cell towers were denied. Danville CA denied Verizon based on the placement was not the least intrusive means. In California SB649, which would have restricted cities ability to regulate 5G, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. The industry vision for 5G is to enable the Internet of Things, Smart Communities, driverless cars (and more), where roads and appliances (even baby diapers!) are embedded with wireless radiation transmitters that connect to cell phones, smart meters and the internet. The industry wants wireless everywhere with “small cell” towers every couple hundred feet apart! That means cell towers in our neighborhoods, near schools and parks, where we live, work and play.”

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is outdated, based on obsolete technology, and gives the power to telecom companies: https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer- risk-bills-in-these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The Telecommunication Act made sure the cell phone companies are protected, that’s for sure. The act was written based on what many call outdated science from 1996 outlining that if cities consider cell towers’ health effects, the cell company can sue them” http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “Governor Brown vetoed California's 2017 Small Cell Bill (Senate Bill 649), so, fortunately, all California cities retained their authority to regulate the operations of cell phone towers to protect residents' constitutionally-guaranteed rights to privacy and safety. Densified 4G and 5G cell towers installed at the curb sacrifices privacy because once the pole is claimed, wireless cos. or government entities can install whatever they want on the pole: video cameras, listening devices, or microwave devices that can image the interiors of homes. More here.”

“Increased Fire Risk: The heavy and bulky “Small Cell Facilities” could overload telephone poles, leading to increased fire risk. For example, Edison and four telecommunication companies were fined for overloading utility poles with antennas and equipment, which caused the poles to collapse and spark the 2007 Malibu Canyon wildfire.”

Beyond Wireless: Instead of diving in head first to 5G which involves destruction of our environment, risk to our health, compromise of our privacy, and will obscure the beautiful aesthetics of our community, I propose we pursue more sustainable, secure, long term options like fiber optic cable. Californian’s have already paid for this via additional fees charged in the 90’s on their phone bills- the backbone of this cable has already been laid in California and is literally waiting for someone to use it. The City of Nicasio has chosen to invest in fiber optic cable for their citizens thru this public/private partnership, giving their residents, safer, faster, more dependable and secure internet access than any wireless technology could provide: https://www.marincounty.org/main/county-press-releases/press-releases/2018/ist- broadbandwestmarin-112918 http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “We need to halt this ill-advised Wireless-only project and enter into a public process that delivers the least intrusive means to get the fastest, most reliable and energy-efficient Internet access (Wireline fiber-optic service to our homes — without data caps) and to put any new Wireless antennas much farther away from our homes. Cell phone towers installed close to homes significantly reduces property values. A peer-reviewed study in the 2005 Appraisal Journal, said homes near cell phone towers are devalued 20% to 25%.” http://scientists4wiredtech.com/ “We seek to keep all residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and wilderness areas as free as possible from RF/MW radiation exposures. This starts by recognizing the long-con at the root the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the series of FCC regulations passed in the last 20 years that forces down communities’ throats too many unnecessary and redundant wireless networks that deprive many of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without unreasonable government surveillance, intrusion into our homes and forced exposures to a known toxic agent, RF/MW radiation, that has been proven to cause two forms of cancer, DNA damage and other adverse biological effects….. Fiber-optic networks enable data transmissions that are much faster, more reliable, safe for humans and other living organisms, and far more secure from cyber and physical attack when compared to any wireless network which relies on sending data via pulsed, microwave radiation (Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G). In addition, fiber-optic cables use only a fraction of the energy required by wireless networks. https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html Scientific and policy developments regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and other wireless technology

Sunday, March 10, 2019 Cell Tower Health Effects Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property. Localities need to organize and change the Federal law to protect public health and wildlife from exposure to microwave radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations.

As of March 10, 2019, www.antennasearch.com, an industry website, reports 712,000 cell towers and 1.98 million cell antennas in the U.S. We cannot verify the accuracy of these data because the FCC only collects data on certain types of cell towers.

Following are some resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation. I will occasionally update this page. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing near cell towers

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.

Abstract

Radiofrequency radiations (RFRs) emitted by mobile phone base stations have raised concerns on its adverse impact on humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Therefore, the present study was envisaged to evaluate the effect of RFR on the DNA damage and antioxidant status in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations and comparing it with healthy controls.

The study groups were matched on various demographic data including age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use.

The RF power density of the exposed individuals was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group. The HPBLs were cultured and the DNA damage was assessed by cytokinesis blocked micronucleus (MN) assay in the binucleate lymphocytes. The analyses of data from the exposed group (n = 40), residing within a perimeter of 80 meters of mobile base stations, showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei (MN) when compared to the control group, residing 300 meters away from the mobile base station/s.

The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669

My note

All of the recorded RFR power density values in this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission’s maximum permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population. These limits are are 6,000 mW/m2 [milliwatts per square meter] for 900 MHz and 10,000 mW/m2 for 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. In contrast, the highest recorded value in this study was 7.52 mW/m2 of RFR. The “exposed individuals” who resided within 80 meters of a cell antenna received an average of 5.00 mW/m2 of RFR in their bedrooms.

Excerpts

RFR may change the fidelity of DNA as the increased incidence of cancer has been reported among those residing near mobile phone base stations (Abdel-Rassonl et al., 2007; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Cherry, 2000; Eger et al., 2004; Hardell et al., 1999; Hutter et al., 2006; Wolf and Wolf, 2004). RFR emitted frommobile base stations is also reported to increase the DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes of mobile phone users and individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile base station/s (Gandhi and Anita, 2005; Gandhi et al., 2014). Exposure of human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to RFR (1800 MHz, SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg) has been reported to induce DNA single- and double-strands breaks (Diem et al., 2005). Irreversible DNA damage was also reported in cultured human lens epithelial cells exposed to microwave generated by mobile phones (Sun et al., 2006). The adverse health effects of RFR are still debatable as many studies indicated above have found a positive correlation between the DNA damage and RFR exposure; however, several studies reported no significant effect of RFR on DNA strand breaks and micronuclei formation in different study systems (Li et al., 2001; Tice et al., 2002; McNamee et al., 2003;Maes et al., 2006). The potential genotoxicity of RFR emitted by mobile phone base stations can be determined by micronucleus (MN) assay, which is an effective tool to evaluate the genotoxic or clastogenic effects of physical and chemical agents. This technique has also been used to quantify the frequencies of radiation-induced MN in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) (Fenech and Morley, 1985; Jagetia and Venkatesha, 2005; Prosser et al., 1988; Yildirim et al., 2010).

Six mobile phone base stations, operating in the frequency range of 900 MHz (N = 2) and1800MHz (N = 4), erected in the thickly populated areas of Aizawl city were selected for the present study… The power output of all the base stations is 20 W, with their primary beam emitting radiation at an angle of 20°. Power density measurements (using HF-60105V4, Germany) were carried out in the bedroom of each participant where they spent most of the time and hence have the longest constant level of electromagnetic field exposure. Power density measurement was carried out three times (morning, midday and evening), and the average was calculated for each residence around each base station. The main purpose of the measurement of power density was to ensure that RFR emission from each site did not exceed the safe public limits and to determine any difference in power density between selected households that were close to (within 80 m) and far (>300 m) from the mobile phone base stations. The safety limits for public exposure from mobile phone base stations are 0.45 W/m2 for 900 MHz and 0.92 W/m2 for 1800 MHz frequency as per Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi guidelines (DoT, 2012).

… some residences are located horizontally with the top of the towers from which RFR are emitted, making it possible to get an exposure at a short distance of 1–20 m, despite being erected on the rooftop or in the ground. A minimum of two individuals were sampled from each household and at least five individuals were sampled around each mobile base station. Individuals sampled around each base station were matched for their age and gender (Table 1). The exposed group consisted of 40 healthy individuals who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of being above 18 years of age and residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (within 80 m radius). The control group comprised of 40 healthy individuals matched for age and gender who had been living at least 300 m away from any mobile phone base stations…. Sampling was also done only from those residences who did not use microwave oven for cooking, Wifi devices and any other major source of electromagnetic field as they are known to cause adverse effects (Atasoy et al., 2013; Avendaño et al., 2012).

The groups matched for most of the demographic data such as age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, mobile phone usage, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use (Table 2). A highly significant variation (p < 0.0001) was observed for the distance of household from the base station (40.10 ± 3.02 vs. 403.17 ± 7.98 in m) between exposed and control groups.

The RF power density of the exposed group (2.80–7.52 mW/m2; average 5.002 ± 0.182 mW/ m2) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group (0.014–0.065 mW/m2; average 0.035 ± 0.002 mW/m2). The highest power density was recorded at a distance of 1–20 m (6.44 ± 0.31 mW/m2), which is significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than those at a distance of 21–40 m (4.79 ± 0.33), 41– 60 m (4.48 ± 0.22) and 61–80 m (4.61 ± 0.10).

The highest measured power density was 7.52mW/m2. Most of the measured values close to base stations (Table 1) are higher than that of the safe limits recommended by Bioinitiative Report 2012 (0.5mW/m2), Salzburg resolution 2000 (1 mW/m2) and EU (STOA) 2001 (0.1 mW/m2). However, all the recorded values were well below the current ICNIRP safe level (4700 mW/m2) and the current Indian Standard (450 mW/m2).

The exact mechanism of action of RFR in micronuclei induction and reduced antioxidant status is not apparent. The possible putative mechanism of generation of DNA damage may be the production of endogenous free radicals due to continuous exposure. RFR has been reported to produce different free radicals earlier (Avci et al., 2009; Burlaka et al., 2013; Barcal et al., 2014; Kazemi et al., 2015). Cells possess a number of compensatory mechanisms to deal with ROS and its effects. Among these are the induction of antioxidant proteins such as GSH, SOD and CAT. Enzymatic antioxidant systems function by direct or sequential removal of ROS, thereby terminating their activities. An imbalance between the oxidative forces and antioxidant defense systems causes oxidative injury, which has been implicated in various diseases, such as cancer, neurological disorders, atherosclerosis, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, asthma, hypertension and ischemia (Andreadis et al., 2003; Comhair et al., 2005; Dhalla et al., 2000; Finkel and Holbrook, 2000; Kasparova et al., 2005; Sayre et al., 2001; Sohal et al., 2002). Because of the significant decrease in endogenous antioxidants and increased LOO among the exposed group, the extra burden of free radicals is unlikely to get neutralized, and these surplus ROS may react with important cellular macromolecules including DNA forming either DNA adducts or stand breaks, which may be later expressed as micronuclei once the cell decides to divide. The decline in the antioxidant status may be also due to the suppressed activity of Nrf2 transcription factor which is involved in maintaining the antioxidant status in the cells.

The present study has reported that [radiofrequency radiation] increased the frequency of [micronuclei] and [lipid peroxidation] and reduced [glutathione] contents, [catalase] and [superoxide dismutase] activities in the plasma of the exposed individuals. The induction of [micronuclei] may be due to the increase in free-radical production. The present study demonstrated that staying near the mobile base stations and continuous use of mobile phones damage the DNA, and it may have an adverse effect in the long run. The persistence of DNA unrepaired damage leads to genomic instability which may lead to several health disorders including the induction of cancer.

--

Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395 (2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018.

Open Access Paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys

Abstract

The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed.

Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.

The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted.

Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines.

Excerpts

In lieu of building new cell towers, some municipalities are licensing public utility poles throughout urban areas for Wi-Fi antennas that allow wireless Internet access. These systems can require hundreds of antennas in close proximity to the population with some exposures at a lateral height where second- and third-story windows face antennas. Most of these systems are categorically excluded from regulation by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or oversight by government agencies because they operate below a certain power density threshold. However, power density is not the only factor determining biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR).

An aesthetic emphasis is often the only perceived control of a municipality, particularly in countries like America where there is an overriding federal preemption that precludes taking the “environmental effects” of RFR into consideration in cell tower siting as stipulated in Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (USFCC 1996). Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure. Many citizens, especially those who claim to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, state they would rather know where the antennas are and that hiding them greatly complicates society’s ability to monitor for safety.

Industry representatives try to reassure communities that facilities are many orders of magnitude below what is allowed for exposure by standards-setting boards and studies bear that out (Cooper et al. 2006; Henderson and Bangay 2006; Bornkessel et al. 2007). These include standards by the International Commission on Non- Protection (ICNIRP) used throughout Europe, Canada, and elsewhere (ICNIRP 1998). The standards currently adopted by the U.S. FCC, which uses a two-tiered system of recommendations put out by the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) for civilian exposures (referred to as uncontrolled environments), and the International Electricians and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for professional exposures (referred to as controlled environments) (U.S. FCC 1997). The U.S. may eventually adopt standards closer to ICNIRP. The current U.S. standards are more protective than ICNIRP’s in some frequency ranges so any harmonization toward the ICNIRP standards will make the U.S. limits more lenient.

All of the standards currently in place are based on RFRs ability to heat tissue, called thermal effects. A longstanding criticism, going back to the 1950s (Levitt 1995), is that such acute heating effects do not take potentially more subtle non-thermal effects into consideration. And based on the number of citizens who have tried to stop cell towers from being installed in their neighborhoods, laypeople in many countries do not find adherence to existing standards valid in addressing health concerns. Therefore, infrastructure siting does not have the confidence of the public (Levitt 1998).

The intensity of RFR decreases rapidly with the distance from the emitting source; therefore, exposure to RFR from transmission towers is often of low intensity depending on one’s proximity. But intensity is not the only factor. Living near a facility will involve long-duration exposures, sometimes for years, at many hours per day. People working at home or the infirm can experience low-level 24 h exposures. Nighttimes alone will create 8 hour continuous exposures. The current standards for both ICNIRP, IEEE and the NCRP (adopted by the U.S. FCC) are for whole-body exposures averaged over a short duration (minutes) and are based on results from short-term exposure studies, not for long-term, low-level exposures such as those experienced by people living or working near transmitting facilities. For such populations, these can be involuntary exposures, unlike cell phones where user choice is involved.

The U.S. FCC has issued guidelines for both power density and SARs. For power density, the U.S. guidelines are between 0.2–1.0 mW/cm2….

At 100–200 ft (about 30–60 meters) from a cell phone base station, a person can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2)….

For the purposes of this paper, we will define low-intensity exposure to RFR of power density of 0.001 mW/cm2

Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities comparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft ( 60–150 m) of a cell tower, including effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures and animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Effects reported include: genetic, growth, ∼ and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk….

Ten years ago, there were only about a dozen studies reporting such low-intensity effects; currently, there are more than 60. This body of work cannot be ignored. These are important findings with implications for anyone living or working near a transmitting facility. However, again, most of the studies in the list are on short-term (minutes to hours) exposure to low-intensity RFR. Long-term exposure studies are sparse. In addition, we do not know if all of these reported effects occur in humans exposed to low-intensity RFR, or whether the reported effects are health hazards. Biological effects do not automatically mean adverse health effects, plus many biological effects are reversible. However, it is clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Clearly, more needs to be learned before a presumption of safety can continue to be made regarding placement of antenna arrays near the population, as is the case today.

… The previously mentioned studies show that RFR can produce effects at much lower intensities after test animals are repeatedly exposed. This may have implications for people exposed to RFR from transmission towers for long periods of time.

… The conclusion from this body of work is that effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure.

Since most studies with RFR are short-term exposure studies, it is not valid to use their results to set guidelines for long-term exposures, such as in populations living or working near cell phone base stations.

Numerous biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term, low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly from myriad wireless products and services.

People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic “microwave sickness syndrome,” also known as “radiofrequency radiation sickness.” First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others. The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973).

The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards setting. That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate the works at all.... In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations. The U.S. standards should not be “harmonized” toward more lenient allowances. The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today. Exposure of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission towers should be kept to a minimum and should follow the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle. Some scientists, organizations, and local governments recommend very low exposure levels — so low, in fact, that many wireless industries claim they cannot function without many more antennas in a given area. However, a denser infrastructure may be impossible to attain because of citizen unwillingness to live in proximity to so many antennas. In general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2, which is in line with Salzburg, Austria’s indoor exposure value for GSM cell base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter 2009). In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF), also made this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (Bioinitiative Report 2007).

Citizens and municipalities often ask for firm setbacks from towers to guarantee safety. There are many variables involved with safer tower siting — such as how many providers are co-located, at what frequencies they operate, the tower’s height, surrounding topographical characteristics, the presence of metal objects, and others. Hard and fast setbacks are difficult to recommend in all circumstances. Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to avoid exposure of the public to unnecessary high levels of RFR. As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft ( 500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft ( 50 m). Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that distance, despite the many variables involved. ∼ ∼ However, with new technologies now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce the energy required for effective wireless communication.

In addition, regular RFR monitoring of base stations should be considered….

Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from cell towers Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7.

Abstract

Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Review Papers Bhattacharya, R, Roy, R. Impacts of communication towers on avians: A review. IJECT. 4(1): 137- 139. 2013. http://www.iject.org/vol4/spl1/c0046.pdf

Chronic Exposure Web Site. Research on mobile base stations and their impact on health. http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html

Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263- 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations-Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 16(2- 3):123-135. 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261451

Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Review. 18:369–395. 2010. . http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys Manville, A. A briefing memorandum: What we know, can infer, and don’t yet know about impacts from thermal and non-thermal non-ionizing radiation to birds and other wildlife — for public release. July 14, 2016. http://bit.ly/savewildlifeRFR

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem--a review. Biology and Medicine. 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017477145

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation of mobile telephony devices. Experimental Oncology. 32(2):54-60. 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693976

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology. 33(2):62-70. 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

Yakymenko I., Tsybulin O., Sidorik E. Henshel D., Krylenko O., Krylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biologic activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 7:1-16. 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230

Recent Studies (Updated 12/5/2017)

Al-Quzwini O, Al-Taee H, Al-Shaikh S. Male fertility and its association with occupational and mobile phone towers hazards: An analytic study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. Avail. online Apr 8, 2016. http://bit.ly/1SRUWWs

Baliatsas C, van Kamp I, Bolte J, Kelfkens G, van Dijk C, Spreeuwenberg P, Hooiveld M, Lebret E, Yzermans J. Clinically defined non-specific symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: A retrospective before-after study. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Sep 15;565:714- 20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219506

Bienkowski P, Zubrzak B. Electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base station - variability analysis. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Sep;34(3):257-61. http://1.usa.gov/1TEXygr

Black B, Granja-Vazquez R, Johnston BR, Jones E, Romero-Ortega M (2016) Anthropogenic Radio- Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Elicit Neuropathic Pain in an Amputation Model. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0144268. http://bit.ly/1R7g4vN

Cammaerts MC, Johansson O. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137. http://bit.ly/EMRcress

Eskander EF, Estefan SF, Abd-Rabou AA. How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles? Clinical Biochemistry, Volume 45, Issues 1–2. 2012, Pages 157- 161. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021

Gandhi G, Kaur G, Nisar U. A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 9:1- 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006864

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya, Aggarwal NK, Kumar R, Gupta R. Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015 Aug 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26238667

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Priya K, Aggarwal NK, Gupta R. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Mol Cell Biochem. 2017 Aug 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28819931

Hardell L, Koppel T, Carlberg M, Ahonen M, Hedendahl L. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology. Published online Aug 12, 2016. Open access: http://bit.ly/2aI93Ut

Marinescu I, Poparlan C. Assessment of GSM HF-Radiation impact levels within the residential area of Craiova (Romania) city. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32:177-183. 2016. http://bit.ly/28Q6EEy

Martens AL, Slottje P, Timmermans DR, Kromhout H, Reedijk M, Vermeulen RC, Smid T. Modeled and Perceived Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields From Mobile-Phone Base Stations and the Development of Symptoms Over Time in a General Population Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 7:1- 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398549

Meo SA, Alsubaie Y, Almubarak Z, Almutawa H, AlQasem Y, Hasanato RM. Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 13;12(11):14519-14528. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14519

Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, Roser K, Eeftens M, Struchen B, Foerster M, Meier N, Adem S, Röösli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28766560

Singh K, Nagaraj A, Yousuf A, Ganta S, Pareek S, Vishnani P. Effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on general health and salivary function. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2016;6:54-9. http://bit.ly/1USYGNs

Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Aug 20;572:554- 569. http://bit.ly/2cbXNBy

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1- 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669

Resources Best Best & Krieger. Letter to EMF Safety Network: Local Authority Over Wireless Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. Apr 24, 2018. http://bit.ly/BBKletter04242018

Campanelli & Associates, P.C. Cell tower lawyers. http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/

Center for Municipal Solutions. Excellent resource re: regulation of cell towers & wireless facilities. http://bit.ly/1GX4mPY

Karish G, Barket E (Best Best & Krieger). Issues of Local Control and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Presented at League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Spring Conference, May 3, 2018. 22 pp. http://bit.ly/wirelesscontrol

League of Minnesota Cities. Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. Nov 4, 2016. http://bit.ly/2k5PQz0

San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) http://www.antennafreeunion.org/neighborhoodaction.htm

News

RCR Wireless News. Appeals Court rules that California cities have the right to block small cell based on aesthetic concerns. Sep 16, 2016. http://bit.ly/2cE9GhN

Rouhan Sharma. A Towering Problem. Infrastructure Today, Feb 2016. http://bit.ly/1QcHSxO

Special Correspondent. "Radiation levels of mobile towers should be cut." The Hindu. Feb 7, 2016. http://bit.ly/1Pt5Sck "Stating that the current level of radiation (electromagnetic field, EMF) emitted by mobile phone towers was still high, Girish Kumar, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, on Saturday, urged the Centre to reduce the radiation level further. The mobile tower radiation had been reduced [in India] from 45,000 milliwatt per square metre to 450 milliwatt a few years ago. It should be reduced to 10 milliwatt, he said ...." Note: The FCC allows the American general public to be exposed from 5,800 milliwatts per square meter to 10,000 milliwatts per square meter depending on the frequency. Lydia Beyoud. Not All ‘Small Cells' Created Equal, Say Municipalities in Wireless Siting Rules Suit. Bloomberg BNA. Apr 27, 2015. http://www.bna.com/not-small-cells-n17179925917/ "... the number of small cell and DAS installations is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. As many as 37 million small cell installations could be in place by 2017, and up to 16 million distributed antenna system (DAS) nodes could be deployed by 2018, according to the FCC."

Joel Moskowitz. Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC. Mar 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Ryan Knutson. Cellphone Boom Spurs Antenna-Safety Worries. Wall Street Journal, Oct 2, 2014. http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

Use this QR code to view the newest version of this (https://www.niehs.nih.gov) document

High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats News Release Archive - New Contact Information

For more information about this archival news release, please contact Christine Flowers, Director, Oce of Communications & Public Liaison at (919) 541-3665.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Virginia Guidry, NIEHS Thursday, November 1, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EDT 919-541-1993

National Toxicology Program releases nal reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear Audio Recording of Telephone Press evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency Conference October 31, 2018 radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to nal reports  Transcript (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/) released today. There was (/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/1 1012018transcript_508.pdf) also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of (151KB) exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were NTP Cell Phone Study Page  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphon associated with exposure to RFR. The nal reports represent the es/index.html)

consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientic experts who Fact Sheet reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in (/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofreq uency_radiation_studies_508.pdf) February  (1MB)

Final Rat Study Report (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp- temp/tr595_508.pdf)

Final Mouse Study Report (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp- temp/tr596_508.pdf)

(https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radiofrequency-radiation-linked-tumor-activity-male-rats).

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 1/3 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specic local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said Bucher.

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health eects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

“A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,” said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected nding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. “This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats,” Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes o, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been dened yet. From what we currently understand, it likely diers dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to evaluate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential eects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 2/3 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health eects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential eects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html) to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

Clear evidence (highest)

Some evidence

Equivocal evidence

No evidence (lowest)

About the National Toxicology Program (NTP): NTP is a federal, interagency program headquartered at NIEHS, whose goal is to safeguard the public by identifying substances in the environment that may aect human health. For more information about NTP and its programs, visit ̀ ntp.niehs.nih.gov  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov).

About the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS): NIEHS supports research to understand the eects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists (www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/newslist/index.cfm) to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov  (https://www.nih.gov).

NIH...Turning Discovery Into Health®

Previous Release Next Release Genetics and Pollution Drive Severity of Asthma Soy Formula Feeding During Infancy Associated With Symptoms Severe Menstrual Pain in Adulthood

File Assistance: Downloads for viewing les

Adobe Reader   (https://get.adobe.com/reader/)

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 3/3 ! PO Box 1016 Sebastopol CA 95473 707-827-0109 www.emfsafetynetwork.org

To: Sebastopol Planning Commission 7120 Bodega Ave Sebastopol, CA, 95472

Request denial of Verizon’s “small cell” towers application

Sebastopol Planning Commissioners,

Verizon has requested a major use permit to install “small cell” towers in Sebastopol in two locations. One is near 6985 Hutchins at S. Gravenstein and another at McFarlane and Woodland. This application would begin to lay the groundwork for 5G, which requires a dense network of cell towers. The proposed towers would add unsightly equipment, overload poles, devalue property, and increase radio frequency radiation (RFR) in our neighborhoods. Peer-reviewed published science shows RFR can cause a wide range of health problems: sleep problems, heart arrhythmias, anxiety, headaches, ringing in the ears, cancer and more. Peer- reviewed published science shows RFR is harmful to the environment. Children, the elderly, and those already ill are more vulnerable.

EMF Safety Network1 requests the Planning Commission deny Verizon’s application and uphold Sebastopol’s General Plan, Community Health and Wellness Goals, to minimize community exposure to unsafe EMF radiation. We support the city to prioritize wired over wireless for the health, safety, and welfare of our community. Recently we presented Sebastopol with a letter from attorney Gail Karish of Best Best and Krieger (BBK)2 which outlines the legal reasons a California city can deny “small cell” towers in

1EMF Safety Network (EMFSN) is a Sebastopol based non-profit project founded in 2009. Our mission is to educate and empower people by providing science and solutions to reduce EMFs, achieve public policy change, and obtain environmental justice. We have participated in EMF issues at the local, state and federal level. www.emfsafetynetwork.org 2 http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/April-24-2018-Letter-to-EMF-Safety- Network-re-Wireless-c1.pdf

!1 the public rights-of-way. In general, cities still have some control over cell towers, including visual impacts and aesthetics, lack of a significant coverage gap, public utilities code protections, land use, and process rights. “Small cell” is a junkyard on a pole. “Small cell” towers are not small, they are many feet taller than other telephone poles and loaded with electrical equipment. These photos to the left are of “small cell” towers on Link Lane and Sebastopol Road in Santa Rosa, California. Overloading poles can cause a tower to fall or spark a fire like what happened in Malibu in 2007. “When Santa Ana winds swept through the canyon on Oct. 21, 2007, three utility poles next to Malibu Canyon Road toppled and ignited the fire. The blaze burned 3,836 acres and destroyed or damaged dozens of structures and vehicles. The poles were jointly owned by SoCal Edison, AT&T Mobility, Verizon Wireless and NextG Networks of California.”3 (Note the Sebastopol Rd. tower in the photo on the left is newly installed and already leaning.)

3 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/20/local/la-me-ln-edison-admits-errors-in-malibu-fire-settles-now- top-60-million-20130520

!2 Loss of property value: Home or business owners risk property value loss where a cell tower is installed in the neighborhood. A survey by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy found that 94 percent of homebuyers are “less interested and would pay less” for a property located near a cell tower or antenna.4

Public Utilities Code Section 7901 provides that use of the roads by telephone companies cannot “incommode the public use of the road…” The phrase “incommode the public use” in Section 7901 means “to unreasonably subject the public use to inconvenience or discomfort; to unreasonably trouble, annoy, molest, embarrass, inconvenience; to unreasonably hinder, impede, or obstruct the public use.”5 If ever there was a situation that caused discomfort, or unreasonably troubled residents, it is the case of cell towers near homes. Cell towers emit RFR and peer-reviewed published science shows RFR harms public health and the environment. The International Agency for Research on Cancer at the World Health Organization classifies RFR as a 2B (possible) carcinogen.6

Why we cannot rely on the Federal Communications Commission: FCC proceedings 13-84 and 03-137 were initiated to determine whether their RFR exposure limits and policies created in 1996 need to be reassessed. These proceedings which were filed in 2013 remain incomplete. The federal government has taken sole responsibility for the radiation safety of personal wireless service deployment7 , however, no federal agency is acting responsibly, or being accountable for protecting the public and the environment from the health effects of RFR. The science has evolved greatly since 1996 meanwhile wireless devices have been widely adopted, as well as forced upon the public, for example: cell towers, wireless in schools, and smart meters. This

4 https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-Institute-Science- Law-Public-Policy#.VNRBPp3F-So 5 BBK letter page 2 paragraph 2: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ April-24-2018-Letter-to-EMF-Safety-Network-re-Wireless-c1.pdf

6 IARC/WHO https://goo.gl/BrkpG8

7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7); 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b) and 1.1310, which are based on perceived harm of overheating of human tissues by RFR.

!3 rampant explosion is set to get much worse with 5G, Internet of Things, Smart Cities, radar in cars and more.

The FCC is a regulatory captured agency: Investigative journalist Norm Alster wrote: Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates.8 published by Harvard University. Alster calls on the FCC to acknowledge there may be wireless health risks, to back off wi-fi promotion, to acknowledge children and pregnant women may be especially vulnerable, and more. He writes, “Personally, I don‘t believe that just because something can be done it should heedlessly be allowed. Murder, rape and Ponzi schemes are all doable but subject to prohibition and regulation. Government regulators have the responsibility to examine the consequences of new technologies and act to at least contain some of the worst. Beyond legislators and regulators, public outrage and the courts can also play a role but these can be muffled indefinitely by misinformation and bullying.”

Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms public health. The BioInitiative Reports reference more than 3800 peer-reviewed published studies. Summary of key scientific evidence includes: • Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction • Evidence that Children are More Vulnerable • Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Disorders) • Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity • Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposure • Evidence for Effects on the Blood-brain Barrier • Evidence for Effects on Brain Tumors • Evidence for Effects on Genes (Genotoxicity) • Evidence for Effects on the Nervous System (Neurotoxicity) • Evidence for Effects on Cancer (Childhood Leukemia, Adult Cancers) • Melatonin, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease • Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna

8 http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

!4 “There is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of the evidence for harm.” David O. Carpenter, MD, co- editor Bioinitiative Report. The authors conclude,“EMF and RFR are preventable toxic exposures. We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi- generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.”9 ,10 The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer in the United States. Results showed that rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers: glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a heart tumor.”11 A recent Italian study produced similar results.12

International scientists are calling for immediate measures to reduce RFR. The International EMF Scientist Appeal13 signed by 235 scientists from 41 nations warn: “We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).” “Effects include increased

9 BioInitiative Reports http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09284680/16/2-3 and www.bioinitiative.org 10 http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/section_1_table_1_2012.pdf

11 NTP cell phone study, general info http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html Results of 3/2018 peer review: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/ actions20180328_508.pdf

12 Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radio frequency field representative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367

13 EMF Scientist appeal https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

!5 cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.” The following are quotes from science experts who signed the The International EMF Scientist Appeal.14 • “Based upon epidemiological studies there is consistent evidence of increased risk for brain tumors (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with use of wireless phones.” Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden • “The harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, are now scientifically settled. Pregnant women (the fetus) and children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable.”- Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Paris V Descartes University, European Cancer & Environment Research Institute. • “U.S. regulatory standards and international guidelines only control for short-term heating of tissue. The standards do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are common today. The scientists who signed the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population, and animal and plant life from EMF exposures. There has been strong support from the international scientific community for the Appeal, even among those who believe that scientists should not take public policy positions. Some have taken personal risks to sign the Appeal because this is a public health issue that affects everyone now, as well as future generations.” Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Proximity to RFR antennas is harmful The following peer-reviewed, published studies examine the adverse effects of wireless radiation in relation to antenna location. • Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays “Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have

14 https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/science-policy/expert-emf-scientist-quotations

!6 found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer,

tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.”15 • Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations “The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbance (23.5%) were

significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls…”16 • Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations “We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations.”17

Peer-reviewed, published science shows RFR harms nature The US Department of the Interior states RFR threatens birds, and criticizes the FCC’s radiation guidelines, stating,“the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” Two hundred forty-one bird species suffer mortality risk from both tower collisions and from exposure to the radiation towers emit. This includes birds that are endangered or threatened, Birds of Conservation Concern, migratory birds, and eagles. Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. Birds studied included House Sparrows, White Storks, Collared Doves, and other species. Studies in laboratories of chick embryos documented heart attacks and death.18 Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to wireless radiation from 2006-2015. They monitored, observed and photographed unusual or unexplainable tree damage, and

15http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys&

16 Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16962663

17 Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations https://goo.gl/Zz6dhk

18 US Department of Interior letter and background: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ us_doi_comments.pdf

!7 measured the radiation which the trees were exposed.“The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radio frequency exposure.” They found significant differences between the damaged side of a tree facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. The scientists concluded, “Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees.”19 The following studies show insects are harmed by radiation: • Food collection and response to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation found exposure to radiation caused colony deterioration and affected social insects’ behavior and physiology.20 • Oxidative and genotoxic effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in the earthworm concluded radiation caused genotoxic effects and DNA damage in earthworms21 . • Mobile Phone Induced Honey Bee Worker Piping. The study abstract states,“The worldwide maintenance of the honeybee has major ecological, economic, and political implications.” Cell phone RFR was tested for potential effects on honeybee behavior. Handsets were placed in the close vicinity of honeybees and the sound made by the bees was recorded and analyzed. The information revealed that active cell phone handsets induced the bees worker piping signal. “In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony.” 22 The following are observations by International scientists of RFR effects on nature23 : • “Migratory birds -- incredibly important to the global economy and for the ecological services they provide -- now appear to be negatively affected by non-ionizing radiation.” Dr. Albert

19 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract#

20 Food collection and response to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23320633

21 Oxidative and genotoxic effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in the earthworm Eisenia fetida. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23352129

22 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x

23 https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/science-policy/expert-emf-scientist-quotations

!8 Manville, Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University; Senior Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Emeritus/Retired • “Man-made electromagnetic fields impact all living organisms, acting first on the unit membrane. We must reduce our dependence on 'wireless' technologies, reduce the numbers of masts (i.e., cell towers), of Wi-Fi apparatus, of cordless phones and so on, and clearly indicate, in public spaces, the intensity of the ambient electromagnetic field.” Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Belgium.

5G millimeter waves are harmful The desired future of the telecommunications industry is 5G which incorporates millimeter waves. A 5G deployment would require many cell towers close together throughout communities. Peer-reviewed published science shows millimeter waves penetrate the skin and affect human health.24 A meta-analysis of studies on millimeter waves (MMWs) “State of knowledge on biological effects at 40–60 GHz”25 states, “At the cellular level, it stands out from the literature that skin nerve endings are probably the main targets of MMWs and the possible starting point of numerous biological effects.” Effects reviewed include effects on capillaries and nerve endings, protein insults, epigenetic regulation, and the risk of homeostasis disruption, which would have dramatic consequences. In addition, millimeter wave technology has been developed as a crowd control weapon which causes acute burning pain, as if the body is on fire.26

International independent scientists have called for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G27 . They state, “We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”

24 State of knowledge on biological effects at 40–60 GHz https://goo.gl/gbBKHL

25 C. R. Physique 14 (2013) 402–411

26 US Military Active Denial System http://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/ Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

27 http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Scientist-5G-appeal.pdf

!9 Conclusion The telecommunication industry’s unbounded profit motive should never outweigh the safety and well being of the public and our environment! Communications are safer using wired and corded connections. Please deny Verizon’s cell tower application.

Respectfully submitted on May 29, 2018: /s/______Sandi Maurer, Director EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016, Sebastopol CA 95473

!10

To: His Excellency Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Honorable Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization; Honorable Joyce Msuya, Acting Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Program and Assistant Secretary-General of the U.N.; U.N. Member Nations

International Appeal: Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure

We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include– but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

[1]

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”1. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields2. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.

The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of magnetic fields (ELF MF) in 20023 and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 20114. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.

Collectively we also request that: 1. children and pregnant women be protected; 2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened; 3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology; 4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current; 5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;

1 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf 2 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPStatementEMF.pdf 3 https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono80.pdf 4 https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono102.pdf

[2]

6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity; 7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers; 8. media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and 9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Initial release date: May 11, 2015 Date of this version: January 1, 2019 Inquiries, including those from qualified scientists who request that their name be added to the Appeal, may be made by contacting Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at [email protected]. Note: the signatories to this appeal have signed as individuals, giving their professional affiliations, but this does not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Signatories

Armenia Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair - Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia

Australia Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of , Australia Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University,

Belgium Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium Dr. Andre Vander Vorst, PhD, professor emeritus, University Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Brazil Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Prof. Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Cellular&Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

[3]

Canada Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of , Canada Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Molecular Oncologist (ret.), British Columbia, Canada Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, China Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Mr. Tarmo Koppel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland Prof. Dr. Osmo Hänninen, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Finland Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen. Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland

France Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France Dr Annie J Sasco, MD, MPH, MS, DrPH, Fmr. Research Dir., French NIH (INSERM); Fmr. Chief, Unit of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at International Agency for Research on Cancer; Fmr. Acting Head, Programme for Cancer Control, World Health Organization; France.

Georgia Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

[4]

Germany Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany Prof. Dr. Hynek Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany Prof. Dr. Karl Hecht, MD, former Director, Institute of Pathophysiology, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ.Physics; Ex-Head, Dept. Clinical Research, Medical University, Lubeck, Germany Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, MD, Member, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V, Bamberg, Germany Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D., Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India Associate Prof. Dr Amarjot Dhami, PhD., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India Er. Piyush A. Kokate, MTECH, Scientist C, Analytical Instrumentation Division (AID), CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), India Prof. Girish Kumar, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India Dr. Pabrita Mandal PhD.,Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India Prof. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad MD, Head, Dept of Neurology, Director, Clinical Epidemiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India Dr. Sivani Saravanamuttu, PhD., Dept. Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, India Dr. N.N. Shareesh, PhD., Melaka Manipal Medical College, India Dr. R.S. Sharma, MD, Sr. Deputy Director General, Scientist - G & Chief Coordinator - EMF Project, Indian Council of Medical Research, Dept. of Health Research, Ministry/Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India Prof. Dr. Dorairaj Sudarsanam, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., Fellow - National Academy of Biological Sciences, Prof. of Zoology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Dept. Advanced Zoology & Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, South India

Iran (Islamic Republic of) Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics&Macromolecules Lab;Instit.Biochemistry&Biophysics,University,Tehran,Iran Prof. Seyed Mohammad Mahdavi, PhD., Dept of Biology, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

[5]

Israel Michael Peleg, M.Sc., radio communications engineer and researcher, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Prof. Elihu D. Richter, MD,MPH, Occupational&Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health&Community Medicine, Israel Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, , Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy Prof. Giovanni Di Bonaventura, PhD, School of Medicine, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, Italia Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy Vale Crocetta, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Italy Prof. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life&Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetics Institute of the National Research Council, Italy Dr. Arianna Pompilio, PhD, Dept. Medical, Oral & Biotechnological Sciences. G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy Prof. Dr. Raoul Saggini, MD, School of Medicine, University G. D'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases, B.Ramazzini, Bologna. Italy Prof. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Jordan Prof. Mohammed S.H. Al Salameh, Jordan University of Science & Technology , Jordan

Kazakhstan Prof. Dr, Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria Dr. Obajuluwa Adejoke PhD, Cell Biology and Genetics Unit, Dept of Zoology, University of Ilorin; Lecturer, Biological Sciences Department, Bio-technology Unit, Afe Babalola University, Nigeria Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria Prof. Olatunde Michael Oni , Ph.D, Radiation & Health Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Oman Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

[6]

Poland Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Romania Alina Cobzaru, Engineer, National Institutes Research & Development and Institute of Construction & Sustainability, Romania

Russian Federation Prof. Vladimir N. Binhi, Ph.D., A.M.Prokhorov General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation Dr. Dr. Maxim Trushin, PhD., Kazan Federal University,

Serbia Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research "Sinisa Stankovic", Belgrade, Serbia Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

South Korea (Republic of Korea) Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, South Korea Prof. Hak-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea Prof. Jae Seon Lee, MD, Department of Molecular Medicine, NHA University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, South Korea Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea

Spain Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain Prof. Dr. Miguel López-Lázaro, PhD., Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Seville, Spain Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain Prof. Dr. Emilio Mayayo, MD, Pathology Unit, School of Medicine, University Rovira I Virgili (URV), Tarragona, Spain Prof Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sudan Mosab Nouraldein Mohammed Hamad, MA, Head, Dept. of Medical Parasitology, Health Sciences, Elsheikh Abdallah Elbadri University, Sudan

[7]

Sweden Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden Dr. Lena Hedendahl, MD, Independent Environment and Health Research, Luleå, Sweden Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre, A.R.A. (Association Romande Alerte,

Taiwan (Republic of China) Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Turkey Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey Associate Prof.Dr. Halil Abraham Atasoy, MD, Pediatrics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey Prof. Dr. Osman Cerezci, Electrical-Electronics Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey Prof. Dr. Ali H. Eriş, MD, faculty, Radiation Oncology Department, BAV University Medical School, Turkey Prof. Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey Prof. Associate Prof. Ayse Inhan Garip, PdH., Marmara Univ. School of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Turkey Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Head, Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey Prof. Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Selim Seker, Electrical Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey Prof. Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey Prof. Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), PhD.,Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

Ukraine Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Prof. Victor Martynyuk, PhD., ECS "Institute of Biology", Head of Biophysics Dept, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ukraine Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Instit. Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

United Kingdom Michael Bevington, M.A., M.Ed., Chair of Trustees, ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK), UK Mr. Roger Coghill, MA,C Biol, MI Biol, MA Environ Mgt; Member Instit.of Biology; Member, UK SAGE Committee on EMF Precautions, UK Mr. David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London, UK Emeritus Professor Denis L. Henshaw, PhD., Human Radiation Effects, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK Dr. Gerard Hyland, Ph.D., Institute of Biophysics, Neuss, Germany, UK Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK Emeritus Professor, Michael J. O’Carroll, PhD., former Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, UK Mr. Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, Brunel University, London, UK Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., independent neuroscience and environmental health research, UK

[8]

United States Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA Prof. Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA Dr. Sandra Cruz-Pol, PhD., Professor Electrical Engineering, on Radio Frequencies, Electromagnetics, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez; Member of US National Academies of Sciences Committee for Radio Frequencies; Puerto Rico, USA Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA Dr. James DeMeo, PhD, retired in private research Paul Raymond Doyon, EMRS, MAT, MA , Doyon Independent Research Associates, USA Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA Dr Reba Goodman Ph.D, Columbia University Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA Dr . Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P. Emeritus member, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; Former Assistant Clinical Professor, UCLA; Former member, Brain Research Institute, UCLA. USA Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA Dr. Seungmo Kim, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Southern University, USA Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D., Gainesville, VA, USA Neha Kumar, Founder, Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Alternatives, Pvt. Ltd; B.Tech - Industrial Biotech., USA Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA Prof. Trevor G. Marshall, PhD, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, USA Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA Dr. Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA Dr. Ronald Melnick, PhD, Senior Toxicologist, (Retired, leader of the NTP's health effects studies of cell phone radio frequency radiation) US National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA Imtiaz Nasim, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Southern University, USA Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Camilla Rees, MBA, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA Dr. Cindy Lee Russell, M.D. Physicians for Safe Technology, USA Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA ______

Supporting Scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in related fields

Olga Ameixa, PhD. Post-Doctoral Researcher, Dept of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro Campus, Universitário de Santiago, Portugal Michelle Casciani, MA, Environmental Science, President/Chief Executive Officer, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy Enrico Corsetti, Engineer, Research Director, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy Jacques Testart, Biologist, Honorary Research Director at I.N.S.E.R.M. (French National Medical Research Institute), France Xin Li, PhD candidate MSc, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA Dr. Carlos A. Loredo Ritter, MD, Pediatrician, Pediatric Neurologist, President, Restoration Physics, North American Sleep Medicine Society, USA Dr. Robin Maytum, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK

[9]

Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, Ph.D, Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba; President, FUNAM; Recognitions: Scientific Investigation Award from University of Buenos Aires, UNEP 'Global 500' Award (Brussels, Belgium), the Nuclear Free Future Award (Salzburg, Austria), and Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award, Sweden), Argentina. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Biologist, Neuroscientist, Advisor to the Dutch EHS Foundation, Netherlands Dr. Carmen Adella Sirbu, MD, Neurology, Lecturer, Titu Matorescu University, Romania

[10]

Occupational Medicine

Login | Contact Us

IAFF FireFighters

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 (1), is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular antennae, and examine the health status of the fire fighters as a function of their assignment in exposed or unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other metabolic effects observed in preliminary studies. It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecommunications industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from exposure to RF/MW radiation unless the intensity of the radiation is sufficient to heat body tissue. However, it is important to note that these positions are based on non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted from wireless telecommunications base stations. Furthermore, most studies that are the basis of this position are at least five years old and generally look at the safety of the phone itself. IAFF members are concerned about the effects of living directly under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daily basis. There are established biological effects from exposure to low-level RF/MW radiation. Such biological effects are recognized as markers of adverse health effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals for example. The IAFF’s efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological effects and a health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due to the siting of cell phone antennas and base stations at fire stations and facilities where they work.

Background Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain. Accordingly, should we allow exposure of our fire fighters and emergency medical personnel to this radiation to continue for the next twenty years when there is ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF/MW health effects? While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF/MW exposure (just like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently investigating the health hazards of low intensity RF/MW exposure. Low intensity RF/MW exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body. Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human ." (2) In March 2002 The International Association on Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization also assigned this designation to ELF/EMF in Volume 80 of its IARC Monographs on the http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. (3) Fixed antennas used for wireless telecommunications are referred to as cellular base stations, cell stations, PCS ("Personal Communications Service") stations or telephone transmission towers. These base stations consist of antennas and electronic equipment. Because the antennas need to be high in the air, they are often located on towers, poles, water tanks, or rooftops. Typical heights for freestanding base station towers are 50-200 feet. Some base stations use antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, that are referred to as "omni-directional" antennas. These types of antennas are usually found in rural areas. In urban and suburban areas, wireless providers now more commonly use panel or sector antennas for their base stations. These antennas consist of rectangular panels, about 1 by 4 feet in dimension. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three antennas each. One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to wireless phones, and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from wireless phones. At any base station site, the amount of RF/MW radiation produced depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) per antenna and the power of each transmitter. Typically, 21 channels per antenna sector are available. For a typical cell site using sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters. When omni-directional antennas are used, a cellular base station could theoretically use up to 96 transmitters. Base stations used for PCS communications generally require fewer transmitters than those used for cellular radio transmissions, since PCS carriers usually have a higher density of base station antenna sites. The electromagnetic RF/MW radiation transmitted from base station antennas travel toward the horizon in relatively narrow paths. The individual pattern for a single array of sector antennas is wedge-shaped, like a piece of pie. Cellular and PCS base stations in the United States are required to comply with limits for exposure recommended by expert organizations and endorsed by government agencies responsible for health and safety. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF/MW radiation levels on that roof or on others near by would be greater than those typically encountered on the ground. The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of “safe RF/MW radiation exposure is harmless” rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a "thermal effect." (4) There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it. Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:

Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells (5) A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (6) Changes in tumor growth in rats (7) An increased number of tumors in rats (8) Increased single- and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material (9) 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF (10) More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF (11) Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep (12) Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure (13) Neurologic changes (14) including:

Changes in the blood-brain-barrier (15) Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) (16) Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) (17) Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) (18) Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) (19) Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases) (20)

Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children (21) Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" (22) (23)

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Increased blood pressure in healthy men Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications (24)

Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include:

The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children." (25) The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (26) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (27) The Swedish Work Environmental Fund (28) The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (29) The (EC) (30) New Zealand's Ministry of Health (31) National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (32) Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) (33) The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34) European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency (35) Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) (36) The United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (37) The EMF-Team Finland's Helsinki Appeal 2005 (38) Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established. The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe." (39) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) RF/MW safety standards protect only against thermal effects. (40) Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF/MW radiation. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity RF/MW exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze. (41) Internationally, researchers and physicians have issued statements that biological effects from low-intensity RF/MW radiation exposure are scientifically established:

· The 1998 Vienna-EMF Resolution (42) · The 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations (43) · The 2002 Catania Resolution (44) · The 2002 Freiburger Appeal (45) · The 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (46) · The 2004 Second Annual Report from Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks (47) · (48)Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB (The UK's National Radiological Protection Board) The county of Palm Beach, Florida, the City of Los Angeles, California, and the country of New Zealand have all prohibited cell phone base stations and antennas near schools due to safety concerns. The British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils [BCCPAC] passed a resolution in 2003 banning cellular antennae from schools and school grounds. This organization is comparable to the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) in the United States. The resolution was directed to B.C. Ministry of Education, B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development, B.C. School Trustees Association, and B.C. Association of Municipalities.

US Government Information In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used safety guidelines for RF/MW radiation environmental exposure since 1985. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation are derived from the recommendations of two organizations,

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In both cases, the recommendations were developed by scientific and engineering experts drawn from industry, government, and academia after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to the biological effects of RF/MW radiation. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure from certain products such as hand-held wireless telephones. Currently, the World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF/MW radiation safety standards. In order to affirm conformity to standards regarding heating of tissue, measurements are time averaged over 0.1 hours [6 minutes]. This method eliminates any spikes in the readings. Computer power bars have surge protectors to prevent damage to computers. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel do not! The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold level of exposure at which harmful biological thermal effects due to tissue heating may occur. Exposure guidelines in terms of field strength, power density and localized SAR were then derived from this threshold value. In addition, the NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP guidelines vary depending on the frequency of the RF/MW radiation exposure. This is due to the finding that whole-body human absorption of RF/MW radiation varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF/MW energy most efficiently. For products that only expose part of the body, such as wireless phones, exposure limits in terms of SAR only are specified. Similarly, the exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength, and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The specific values can be found in two FCC bulletins, OET Bulletins 56 and 65.

OET Bulletin 56, “Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” was designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions. It includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation. Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 56 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bulletin%2056%20-%20EMF.pdf

OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” was prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to RF/MW radiation adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 65 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bulletin%2065%20-%20Cell%20Towers.pdf The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC- regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For further information and answers to questions about the safety of RF/MW radiation from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC go to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html.

Canadian Government Information Industry Canada is the organization that sets regulatory requirements for electromagnetic spectrum management and radio equipment in Canada. Industry Canada establishes standards for equipment certification and, as part of these standards, developed RSS-102, which specifies permissible radiofrequency RF/MW radiation levels. For this purpose, Industry Canada adopted the limits outlined in Health Canada's Safety-Code 6, which is a guideline document for limiting RF exposure. A downloadable version of “RSS-102 - Evaluation Procedure for Mobile and Portable Radio Transmitters with respect to Health Canada's Safety Code 6 for Exposure of Humans to Radio Frequency Fields”, as well as additional information can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Safety%20Code%206.pdf

Safety Code 6 specifies the requirements for the use of radiation emitting devices. This Code replaces the previous Safety Code 6 - EHD-TR-160. A downloadable version of “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz TO 300 GHz – Safety Code 6”, as well as further detailed information can be found at .http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Non-Ionizing%20Radiation%20Volume%2080.pdf http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

US and Canadian Legal Issues Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF/MW radiation in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the United States Federal Government to control human exposure to RF/MW radiation. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb.

In a recent opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, No. 03-1336 EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, the Court upheld the FCC's decision not to initiate an inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the facilities and products subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in its September 2001 Petition for Inquiry.

At the request of the EMR Network, the EMR Policy Institute provided legal and research support for this appeal. On January 13, 2005, a Petition for Rehearing en banc by the full panel of judges at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was filed. Briefs, background documents and the DC Circuit decision are found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm. The Toronto Medical Officer of Health for the Toronto Board of Health recommended to Health Canada that public exposure limits for RF/MW radiation be made 100 times stricter; however the recommendation was not allowed, since, as in the US, only the Canadian federal government can regulate RF/MW radiation exposure level.

World Health Organization Efforts In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project to review the scientific literature and work towards resolution of health concerns over the use of RF/MW technology. WHO maintains a Web site that provides addition information on this project and about RF/MW biological effects and research. For further information go to http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/.

Conclusion For decades, the International Association of Fire Fighters has been directly involved in protecting and promoting the health and safety of our membership. However, we simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences of long- term exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation of the type used by the cell phone base stations and antennas will be. No one knows--the data just aren't there. The chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP), one of the leading international organizations which formulated the current RF/MW radiation exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive (49) Again, fire department facilities, where fire fighters and emergency response personnel live and work are not the proper place for a technology which could endanger their health and safety

The only reasonable and responsible course is to conduct a study of the highest scientific merit and integrity on the RF/MW radiation health effects to our membership and, in the interim, oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

Footnotes [back] 1. Revised and Amended IAFF Resolution No. 15; August 2004 Study of Firefighters Exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation from Cell Towers/Masts WHEREAS, fire stations across the United States and Canada are being sought by wireless companies as base stations for the antennas and towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions; and

WHEREAS, many firefighters who are living with cell towers on or adjacent to their stations are paying a substantial price in terms of physical and mental health. As first responders and protectors of the general public, it is crucial that firefighters are functioning at optimal cognitive and physical capacity at all times; and

WHEREAS, the brain is the first organ to be affected by RF radiation and symptoms manifest in a multitude of neurological conditions including migraine headaches, extreme fatigue, disorientation, slowed reaction time, vertigo, vital memory loss

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

and attention deficit amidst life threatening emergencies; and

WHEREAS, most of the firefighters who are experiencing symptoms can attribute the onset to the first week(s) these towers/antennas were activated; and

WHEREAS, RF radiation is emitted by these cellular antennas and RF radiation can penetrate every living cell, including plants, animals and humans; and

WHEREAS, both the U. S. and Canadian governments established regulatory limits for RF radiation based on thermal (heat) measurements with no regard for the adverse health effects from non-thermal radiation which is proven to harm the human brain and immune system; and

WHEREAS, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency stated in a July 16, 2002, letter, “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures. The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism (RF radiation from cell towers is non-thermal) but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protecting human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”; and

WHEREAS, an Expert Panel Report requested by the Royal Society of Canada prepared for Health Canada (1999) stated that, “Exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels required to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and tissues. These biological effects include alterations in the activity of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase, in calcium regulation, and in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Some of these biological effects brought about by non- thermal exposure levels of RF could potentially be associated with adverse health effects”; and

WHEREAS, based on concerns over growing scientific evidence of dangers from RF radiation, an international conference was convened in Salzburg, Austria, in the summer of 2000 where renowned scientists declared the upper-most RF radiation exposure limit from a tower-mast should be 1/10th of 1 microwatt (Note that 1/10th of 1 microwatt is 10,000 times lower than the uppermost limit allowed by the U. S. or Canada.); and it should be noted this limit was set because of study results showing brain wave changes at 1/10th of 1 microwatt; and

WHEREAS, in a recently cleared paper by Dr. Richard A. Albanese of the U. S. Air Force, a highly recognized physician in the area of the impact of radiation on the human body, Dr. Albanese states, “I would ask a good faith effort in achieving as low exposure rates as are possible within reasonable financial constraints. Also I would fund targeted studies using animal subjects and human groups living or working in high radiation settings or heavy cellular phone users, emphasizing disease causations. I urge acceptance of the ideal that there should be no unmonitored occupational or environmental exposures whose associated disease rates are unknown.” (The opinions expressed herein are those of Dr. Albanese, and do not reflect the policies of the United States Air Force.); and

WHEREAS, recently a study, not affiliated with the wireless industry, was conducted of firefighters exposed to RF radiation from cell towers/antennas affixed to their stations.** The study revealed brain damage that can be differentiated from chemical causation (such as inhalation of toxic smoke) suggesting RF radiation as the cause of the brain damage found on SPECT scans; and

WHEREAS, firefighters are the protectors of people and property and should be protected under the Precautionary Principle of Science and therefore, unless radiation is proven safe and harmless, cellular antennas should not be placed on or near fire stations; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the IAFF shall seek funding for an initial U. S. and Canadian study with the highest scientific merit and integrity, contrasting firefighters with residence in stations with towers to firefighters without similar exposure; and be it further

RESOLVED, That in accordance with the results of the study, the IAFF will establish protective policy measures with the health and safety of all firefighters as the paramount objective; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for antennas and towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until such installations are proven not to be hazardous to the health of our members. **Note: A pilot study was conducted in 2004 of six California fire fighters working and sleeping in stations with towers. The study, conducted by Gunnar Heuser, M.D., PhD. of Agoura Hills, CA, focused on neurological symptoms of six fire fighters who had been working for up to five years in stations with cell towers. Those symptoms included slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, sleep deprivation, depression, and tremors. Dr. Heuser used functional brain scans - SPECT scans - to assess any changes in the brains of the six fire fighters as compared to healthy brains of men of the same age. Computerized psychological testing known as TOVA was used to study reaction time, impulse control, and attention span. The SPECT scans revealed a pattern of abnormal change which was concentrated over a wider area than would normally be seen in brains of individuals exposed to toxic inhalation, as might be expected from fighting fires. Dr. Heuser concluded the only plausible explanation at this time would be RF radiation exposure. Additionally, the TOVA testing revealed among the six fire fighters delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and difficulty in maintaining mental focus.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

[back] 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel."

June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July/August 1998

[back] 3. World Health Organization; International Agency for Research on Cancer; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; Volume 80 Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields; 2002; 429 pages; ISBN 92 832 1280 0; See http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol80/volume80.pdf This IARC Monograph provides the rationale for its designation of ELF/EMF as a possible human carcinogen. It states that:

A few studies on genetic effects have examined chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes from workers exposed to ELF electric and magnetic fields. In these studies, confounding by genotoxic agents (tobacco, solvents) and comparability between the exposed and control groups are of concern. Thus, the studies reporting an increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei are difficult to interpret. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of ELF magnetic fields on various genetic end-points. Although increased DNA strand breaks have been reported in brain cells of exposed rodents, the results are inconclusive; most of the studies show no effects in mammalian cells exposed to magnetic fields alone at levels below 50 µT. However, extremely strong ELF magnetic fields have caused adverse genetic effects in some studies. In addition, several groups have reported that ELF magnetic fields enhance the effects of known DNA- and chromosome-damaging agents such as ionizing radiation. The few animal studies on cancer-related non-genetic effects are inconclusive. Results on the effects on in-vitro cell proliferation and malignant transformation are inconsistent, but some studies suggest that ELF magnetic fields affect cell proliferation and modify cellular responses to other factors such as melatonin. An increase in apoptosis following exposure of various cell lines to ELF electric and magnetic fields has been reported in several studies with different exposure conditions. Numerous studies have investigated effects of ELF magnetic fields on cellular end-points associated with signal transduction, but the results are not consistent. [back] 4. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: "Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in people subject to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency fields. In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations."

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters," Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996 The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states: "An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable data on chronic exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute exposures, even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature."

IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for Safe Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992. [back] 5. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997) using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our current standards (SAR of 1.6 W/Kg, the http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. This shows that "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note that "because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, glioblastoma, a human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research.

E.M. Czerska, J. Casamento, J. T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cell Proliferation," [Abstract presented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics and Possible Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MD] E. M. Czerska, J. Casamento Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; H. T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA [back] 6. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the International Electromagnetic Fields Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lymphomas (a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the researchers pointed out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to develop cancer, and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer." Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true non-thermal effect." He repeated the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implications for his original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed no statistical differences, which lessens the possibility that the RF/MW radiation study result was a chance event or due to errors in methodology." It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was developed in 1996.

M. Repacholi et al., "Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields," Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997 [back] 7. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital at Loma Linda University in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones. The rats were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hours a day, four days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes, so total exposure was 4 hours a week. Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital, analog signal was used. Rats exposed developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency can influence cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study.

Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital at Loma Linda University, CA presented the results of pulsed (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997 2nd World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy. Reviews can be found in Microwave News issues July/August, 1996 and March/April 1997. In recognition of his more than three decades of "fundamental contributions to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields," the authors of the November 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) chose to include Dr. Adey's personal views on Electromagnetic Field Exposure research as the Foreword to that report. To view the entire report, see: REFLEX Final Report.pdf The following is taken from Dr. Adey's Foreword found on pages 1-3 of the REFLEX Report:

The Future of Fundamental Research in a Society Seeking Categoric Answers to Health Risks of New Technologies In summary, we have become superstitious users of an ever-growing range of technologies, but we are now unable to escape the web that they have woven around us.

Media reporters in general are no better informed. Lacking either responsibility or accountability, they have created feeding frenzies from the tiniest snippets of information gleaned from scientific meetings or from their own inaccurate interpretation of published research. In consequence, the public has turned with pleading voices to government legislatures and bureaucracies for guidance . . .

We face the problem brought on by the blind leading the blind. Because of public pressure for rapid answers to very complex

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

biological and physical issues, short-term research programs have been funded to answer specific questions about certain health risks. In many countries, and particularly in the USA, the effects of such harassing and troublesome tactics on independent, careful fundamental research have been near tragic. Beguiled by health hazard research as the only source of funding, accomplished basic scientists have diverted from a completely new frontier in physical regulation of biological mechanisms at the atomic level. Not only have governments permitted corporate interests in the communications industry to fund this research, they have even permitted them to determine the research questions to be addressed and to select the institutions performing the research. [back] 8. Dr. A. W. Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27 months of age to low- level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers.

A. W. Guy, C. K. Chou, L. Kunz, L, Crowley, and J. Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure on Rats." Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, USF-SAM- TR-85-11; 1985 [back] 9. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported both single- and double- strand DNA breaks in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases.

H. Lai and N. P. Singh, "Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation," International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No. 4, 513-521, 1996 [back] 10. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has found that those exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation in the workplace had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data suggesting a dose-response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed, and those exposed to 600- 1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. The level considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations is 1000 W/cm2 . Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm2 is allowed.

S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation," The Science of the Total Environment 180:9-17, 1996 [back] 11. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02 W/cm2 farther from the towers.

B. Hocking, I. R. Gordon, H. L. Grain, and G. E. Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers," Medical Journal of Australia 165: 601-605; 1996 [back] 12. Drs. Mann and Röschke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency RF/MW radiation of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percentage of REM sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especially concerning consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with alterations of memory and learning functions."

K. Mann and J. Röschke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep," Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996 [back] 13. Dr. Allen Frey has been researching RF/MW radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the abstract on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous recent reports of headaches occurring in association with the use of hand-held cellular telephones. Are these reported headaches real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is reason to believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier. Third, the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines of research, the microwave energy used was approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies--as those emitted by present day cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects?"

A. H. Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Perspectives Volume 106, Number 3, pp.101-103, March 1998 [back] 14. Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF/MW radiation: Existing data indicate that RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux, and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RR have been reported. Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF/MW radiation exposure could lead to adverse consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an accident when a person is driving. Loss of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF/MW radiation. Research has also shown that the effects of RF/MW radiation on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RF/MW radiation could be a stress response. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes.

H. Lai, "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology," Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk?" September 16-17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium [back] 15. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining the blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that "Even though most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF/MW radiation of high intensities with significant increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposure to RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensities...Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF." Pulsed RF/MW is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm2 level, and even at SAR of 0.016-5 W/kg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function.

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 16. Cellular Morphology: RF/MW radiation induced morphological changes of the central nervous system cells and tissues have been shown to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the RF/MW radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF/MW radiation produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them, for instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in morphology, especially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Injury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 W/kg or even 0.26 W/kg.

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 17. Neural Electrophysiology: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, and EEG have been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesting cumulative effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cm2 .

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 18. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve cell to another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, serotonin, and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF/MW radiation. However, there are more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities of RF radiation. For example, effects were seen at 50 2 2 µW/cm in one experiment. U.S. and Canadian RF/MW radiation safety policies allow exposures of 1000 µW/cm at that frequency. RF/MW radiation activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine-like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, such as pain perception and motivation.

The response to RF/MW radiation depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure. Exposure to RF/MW radiation has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium).

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 19. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RF/MW radiation exposure on

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposure to relatively low intensity RF/MW radiation for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the frequency and modulation characteristics of the RF/MW radiation and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue. Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neurotransmitters and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some researchers have also reported no significant effects of RF/MW radiation exposure on calcium efflux. However, when positive effects were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF/MW radiation studied (window effects). Some studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg.

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 20. Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RF/MW radiation. Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF/MW radiation , and these results could have important implication for the health effects of RF/MW radiation . Genetic damage to glial cells can result in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neuronal genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of 1 mW/cm2 were employed, a level considered safe for the public by the FCC. RF/MW radiation -induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds are potent free radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. If free radicals are involved in the RF- induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have an important implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, such as cancer and atherosclerosis, has been suggested. Free radicals also play an important role in the aging process, which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington, and Parkinson, has also been suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of RF/MW radiation exposure.

H. Lai, Ibid [back] 21. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy of Sciences, presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time was slower.

A. A. Kolodynski, V. V. Kolodynska, "Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia," The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93, 1996 [back] 22. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency RF/MW radiation at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" function.

H Lai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat," Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994

NOTE: Dr. Lai's January 2005 compilation of published RF/MW radiation studies demonstrating biological effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is included as a Reference section at the end of this report. [back] 23. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to RF/MW radiation of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal where the report appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressure."

S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field," The Lancet 351, pp. 1,857-1,858, 1998 [back] 24. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration) found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power density pulsed RF/MW radiation caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage to the cells covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the "acceptable, safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering from glaucoma. This is a very important study, as it points to the fact that laboratory experiments under "ideal" conditions are rarely what one finds in real life. The "safe" level of RF/MW radiation exposure for healthy people is likely to be very different than for those of us who suffer from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply younger or older than those in the experiments.

H. A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, and S. Koslov, "Increased Sensitivity of the Non-Human http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment," Bioelectromagnetics 13:379-393, 1992 [back] 25. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development of children." Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF Project will last for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project."

World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, The International EMF Project," reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems," reviewed May 1998, [back] 26. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the FDA established the following priorities:

Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority. Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis. Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular effects of RF radiation exposure). Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A careful replication of the Chou and Guy study (Bioelectromagnetics, 13, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, would contribute a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products. Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on induction of micronuclei. Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted.

Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News, March/April, 1997 [back] 27. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is planning a multi-country, multi-million dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998. Microwave News, January/February, 1998 [back] 28. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone radiation and brain tumors in 1997. Microwave News, November/December, 1997 [back] 29. The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and RF/MW radiation in 1993. Microwave News, January/February, 1993 [back] 30. The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called for a 5 year research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997. Microwave News , January/February, 1997 [back] 31. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is imperative that the scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more research to examine the potential health effects of RF radiation. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 32. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5 year, $3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 33. The Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barnett, a principal researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year period would be necessary.

Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 34. In Canada, Expert Panels are formed in response to requests from governments and other organizations for guidance on public policy issues where specialized knowledge is required. The Royal Society of Canada (RSC) is the only national academic organization, encompassing all fields of study in the sciences, arts and humanities that provides, through its Committee on Expert Panels, a service to Canadians by convening Expert Panels that produce publicly disseminated, arms-length, third party reviews. The most recent Expert Panel report addressing RF/MW radiation examines new data on dosimetry and exposure assessment, thermoregulation, biological effects such as enzyme induction, and toxicological effects, including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and testicular and reproductive outcomes. Epidemiological studies of mobile phone users and occupationally exposed populations are examined, along with human and animal studies of neurological and behavioural effects. All of the authoritative reviews completed within the last two years have supported the need for further research to clarify the possible associations between RF fields and adverse health outcomes that have appeared in some reports. See: http://www.rsc.ca//index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=120.

Recent Advances in Research on Radiofrequency Fields and Health: 2001-2003; A Follow-up to The Royal Society of Canada, Report on the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, 1999

[back] 35. The European Union effort to address this issue is in the study Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods (REFLEX). Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in relation to health is a controversial topic throughout the industrial world. So far epidemiological and animal studies have generated conflicting data and thus uncertainty regarding possible adverse health effects. This situation has triggered controversies in communities especially in Europe with its high density of population and industry and the omnipresence of EMF in infrastructures and consumer products. These controversies are affecting the siting of facilities, leading people to relocate, schools to close or power lines to be re-sited, all at great expense. The European Union believes that causality between EMF exposure and disease can never be regarded as proven without knowledge and understanding of the basic mechanisms possibly triggered by EMF. To search for those basic mechanisms powerful technologies developed in toxicology and molecular biology were to be employed in the REFLEX project to investigate cellular and sub- cellular responses of living cells exposed to EMF in vitro. The REFLEX data have made a substantial addition to the data base relating to genotoxic and phenotypic effects of both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF on in vitro cellular systems. While the data neither precludes nor confirms a health risk due to EMF exposure nor was the project designed for this purpose, the value lies in providing new data that will enable mechanisms of EMF effects to be studied more effectively than in the past. Furthermore, the REFLEX data provide new information that will be used for risk evaluation by WHO, IARC and ICNIRP. For further information on REFLEX see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/ka4/ka4_electromagnetic_en.html [back] 36. The Swedish Radiation Protections Institute (SSI) endeavors to ensure that human beings and the environment are protected from the harmful effects of radiation, both in the present and in the future. SSI has focused on epidemiological research on cancer and exposure from mobile phones and transmitters as well as experimental cancer research. In addition three selected topics were also discussed, namely blood-brain barrier, heat shock proteins, and precautionary framework. For further information on SSI see: http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/eng_forfattlista.html [back] 37. In the United Kingdom, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) was created by the Radiological Protection Act 1970. The statutory functions of NRPB are to advance the acquisition of knowledge about the protection of mankind from radiation hazards through research and to provide information and advice to persons (including Government Departments) with responsibilities in the United Kingdom in relation to the protection from radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the community. The NFPB believes that there is a need for better occupational studies rather than simply for more. In particular, the studies need to be of occupational groups for whom measurements show that there is genuinely a substantially raised exposure to RF fields. If the studies are to be more informative than those so far, a key requirement will be for improved exposure measurement (or improved estimation of exposure) for individuals, or at least for occupational groups. It would be desirable, as far as practical, that the studies should measure the intensity and timing of RF field exposures, and also that they should include some assessment of major RF field exposures from sources other than the current occupation. Ideally, exposure assessment needs to be anatomical site (organ)-specific, because some sources result in greatly differing doses to different parts of the body. It is a difficulty in these prescriptions, of course, that the appropriate exposure metric is unknown. For further information on NRPB see: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/ [back] 38. On January 5, 2005, the EMF-Team Finland issued the Helsinki Appeal 2005 to members of the European Parliament. In it physicians and researchers call on the European Parliament to apply the Precautionary Principle to electromagnetic fields, especially in the radio- and microwave- frequency bands. They criticize the present RF/MW radiation safety standards that do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-thermal exposures to non-ionizing radiation [i.e., RF/MW radiation.] They also call for continued refunding of the REFLEX EMF research program. The text of the Helsinke

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Appeal 2005 is found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/index.htm [back] 39. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association: "I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following comments when you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found absolutely safe. In fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there can be no hazard, leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at all.....More specifically, your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellular phones are "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk Paper also states, "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it before, is this: Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe, or that they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is needed."

Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July/August, 1993 [back] 40. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among them (1) "the ANSI/IEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect."

Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993 [back] 41. A brief sampling of the CSIRO report: Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure. As a result, such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological studies providing useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of cancer growth. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent years. RF safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been aimed at the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to find that although the literature contains many hundreds of publications, there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of clear thresholds and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided answers. There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well-established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle non-thermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and apply to human health.

Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 42. Statement from the October 25-28, 1998 "Symposium of Mobile Phones and Health - Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields" held at the University of Vienna, Austria. The preferred terminology to be used in public communication: Instead of using the terms "athermal", "non-thermal" or "microthermal" effects, the term "low intensity biological effects" is more appropriate. Preamble: The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose assessment.

Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured: The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.

Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved: Technical data should be made available to the users to

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developments of low-intensity emission devices. [back] 43. Statement from the June 7-8, 2000 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting Linking Science and Public Health, Salzburg, Austria. The full report can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/cell_tower_measurements.pdf · It is recommended that development rights for the erection and for operation of a base station should be subject to a permission procedure. The protocol should include the following aspects:

o Information ahead and active involvement of the local public o Inspection of alternative locations for the siting o Protection of health and wellbeing o Considerations on conservation of land- and townscape o Computation and measurement of exposure o Considerations on existing sources of HF-EMF exposure o Inspection and monitoring after installation

· It is recommended that a national database be set up on a governmental level giving details of all base stations and their emissions. · It is recommended for existing and new base stations to exploit all technical possibilities to ensure exposure is as low as achievable (ALATA-principle) and that new base stations are planned to guarantee that the exposure at places where people spend longer periods of time is as low as possible, but within the strict public health guidelines. · Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. There is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.

o Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable uncertainties and should be considered preliminary. For the total of all high frequency irradiation a limit value of 100 mW/m² (10 µW/cm²) is recommended.

o For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for the sum total of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities such as GSM base stations of 1 mW/m² (0.1 µW/cm²) is recommended.

[back] 44. Scientists attending the September 13-14, 2002 International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues,” organized by ISPESL (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy), the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania, held in Catania, Italy, agreed to the following:

· Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence for electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health. · We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.

· There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.

· The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use. · We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research. [back] 45. The Freiburger Appeal is a German based appeal by mainly medical practitioners who are concerned about the effects, they believe, from mobile phone technology including masts that are appearing in their patients. It started in Oct 2002 and with very little international publicity has got 50,000 signatories with at least 2000 medical signatures from across the world. Mast These physicians and scientists agreed to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Excerpt:

On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body–immune system, and can bring the body–still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk. Statement of the physicians and researchers of Interdisziplinäre Gesellschaft für Umweltmedizin e. V. (Interdisciplinary Association for Environmental Medicine) IGUMED, Sackingen, Germany, September 19, 2002. The Freiburger Appeal can be found at: http://www.mastsanity.org/doctors-appeals.html. [back] 46. Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), November 2004. The Project studied ELF and RF exposures to various animal cell types. The report is found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/REFLEX%20Final%20Report.pdf

From the Summary: [t]he omnipresence of EMF's in infrastructures and consumer products have become a topic of public concern. This is due to the fear of people that based on the many conflicting research data a risk to their health cannot be excluded with some certainty. Therefore, the overall objective of REFLEX was to find out whether or not the fundamental biological processes at the cellular and molecular level support such an assumption. For this purpose, possible effects of EMF’s on cellular events controlling key functions, including those involved in carcinogenesis and in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders, were studied through focused research. Failure to observe the occurrence of such key critical events in living cells after EMF exposure would have suggested that further research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial resources be reallocated to the investigation of more important issues. But as clearly demonstrated, the results of the REFLEX project show the way into the opposite direction. [back] 47. From the Discussion section of the December 20, 2004 Second Annual Report of Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) entitled: Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks: Second Annual Report from SSI's Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields. The complete report is available at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/EMF_exp_Eng_2004.pdf

To date, little is known about the levels of radiofrequency radiation exposure in the general population from sources such as mobile phones being used by oneself or other people, mobile phone base stations, and radio and television transmitters. Measurements that have been performed have usually been made as a result of public concern about base station exposures or other specific sources, and have therefore been made at locations that could be assumed to have higher fields than would be the case if measurement locations were selected randomly. Furthermore, all measurements have been stationary, and there is today no knowledge about the level of exposure that an individual will have throughout the day. There is need for information about the personal exposure to RF fields in the general population, to enhance the understanding of the relative importance of exposure from base stations close to the home, from radio and television transmitters, and from the use of mobile phones . . . Studies with personal RF exposure measurements of randomly selected samples of the general population are strongly encouraged. [back] 48. Released January 11, 2005, Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB Documents of the NRPB: Volume 15, No. 5. See: Mobile Phones and Health 2004 From the Executive Summary:

The Board notes that a central recommendation in the Stewart Report was that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. The Board considers that it is important to understand the signal characteristics and field strengths arising from new telecommunications systems and related technologies, to assess the RF exposure of people, and to understand the potential biological effects on the human body. [back] 49. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse health impacts," according to Dr. Jürgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, which cover the spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in St. Pete Beach, FL, on June 10. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" such as nerve stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the April issue of Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other non-thermal health effects have not been "established." ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk, Bernhardt noted that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

evidence is less than conclusive.

Microwave News, July/August 1998

Additional References and Studies The following references reporting biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at low intensities through January 2005 were compiled on 12/27/04 by Henry C. Lai PhD, Research Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Balode Sci Total Environ 180(1):81-85, 1996 - blood cells from cows from a farm close and in front of a radar installation showed significantly higher level of severe genetic damage.

Boscol et al. Sci Total Environ 273(1-3):1-10, 2001 - RFR from radio transmission stations (0.005 mW/cm2 ) affects immune system in women.

Chiang et al. J. Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989 - people who lived and worked near radio antennae and radar installations showed deficits in psychological and short-term memory tests.

de Pomerai et al. Nature 405:417-418, 2000. Enzyme Microbial Tech 30:73-79, 2002 - reported an increase in a molecular stress response in cells after exposure to a RFR at a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. This stress response is a basic biological process that is present in almost all animals - including humans.

de Pomerai et al. (FEBS Lett 22;543(1-3):93-97, 2003 - RFR damages proteins at 0.015-0.020 W/kg.

D'Inzeo et al. Bioelectromagnetics 9(4):363-372, 1988 - very low intensity RFR (0.002 – 0.004 mW/cm2) affects the operation of acetylcholine-related ion-channels in cells. These channels play important roles in physiological and behavioral functions.

Dolk et al. Am J Epidemiol 145(1):1-91997- a significant increase in adult leukemias was found in residents who lived near the Sutton Coldfield television (TV) and frequency modulation (FM) radio transmitter in England.

Dutta et al.Bioelectromagnetics 10(2):197-202 1989 - reported an increase in calcium efflux in cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 W/kg. Calcium is an important component of normal cellular functions.

Fesenko et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):29-35, 1999 - reported a change in immunological functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 .

Hallberg O, Johansson O, ( 2004) concluded that continuous disturbance of cell repair mechanisms by body-resonant FM electromagnetic fields seems to amplify the carcinogenic effects resulting from cell damage caused e.g. by UV-radiation.

Hjollund et al. Reprod Toxicol 11(6):897, 1997 - sperm counts of Danish military personnel, who operated mobile ground-to- air missile units that use several RFR emitting radar systems (maximal mean exposure 0.01 mW/cm2), were significantly lower compared to references.

Hocking et al. Med J Aust 165(11-12):601-605, 1996 - an association was found between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers.

Ivaschuk et al. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):223-229, 1999 - short-term exposure to cellular phone RFR of very low SAR (26 mW/kg) affected a gene related to cancer.

Kolodynski and Kolodynska, Sci Total Environ 180(1):87-93, 1996 - school children who lived in front of a radio station had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower, and their neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased.

Kwee et al. Electro- and Magnetobiology 20: 141-152, 2001 - 20 minutes of cell phone RFR exposure at 0.0021 W/kg increased stress protein in human cells.

Lebedeva et al. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 28(1-2):323-337, 2000 - brain wave activation was observed in human subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.06 mW/cm2 .

Magras and Xenos Bioelectromagnetics 18(6):455-461, 1999 - reported a decrease in reproductive function in mice exposed to RFR at power densities of 0.000168 - 0.001053 mW/cm2 . Irreversible sterility was found in the fifth generation of offspring.

Mann et al. Neuroendocrinology 67(2):139-144, 1998 - a transient increase in blood cortisol was observed in human subjects

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.02 mW/cm2 . Cortisol is a hormone involved in stress reaction.

Marinelli et al. J Cell Physiol. 198(2):324-332, 2004 - exposure to 900-MHz RFR at 0.0035 W/kg affected cell’s self-defense responses.

Michelozzi et al. Epidemiology 9 (Suppl) 354p, 1998 - leukemia mortality within 3.5 km (5,863 inhabitants) near a high power radio-transmitter in a peripheral area of Rome was higher than expected.

Michelozzi et al. Am J Epidemiol 155(12):1096-1103, 2002 - childhood leukemia higher at a distance up to 6 km from a radio station.

Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya “Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields, Volume 1," D.O. Carpenter (ed) Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.333-342. 1994 - RFR at low intensities (0.01 - 0.1 mW/cm2; 0.0027- 0.027 W/kg) induced behavioral and endocrine changes in rats. Decreases in blood concentrations of testosterone and insulin were reported.

Novoselova et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):37-41, 1999 -low intensity RFR (0.001 mW/cm2 ) affects functions of the immune system.

Park et al. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 77(6):387-394, 2004 - higher mortality rates for all cancers and leukemia in some age groups in the area near the AM radio broadcasting towers.

Persson et al. Wireless Network 3:455-461, 1997 - reported an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in mice exposed to RFR at 0.0004 - 0.008 W/kg. The blood-brain barrier envelops the brain and protects it from toxic substances.

Phillips et al. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 45:103-110, 1998 - reported DNA damage in cells exposed to RFR at SAR of 0.0024 - 0.024 W/kg.

Polonga-Moraru et al. Bioelectrochemistry 56(1-2):223-225, 2002 - change in membrane of cells in the retina (eye) after exposure to RFR at 15 µW/cm2 .

Pyrpasopoulou et al. Bioelectromagnetics 25(3):216-227, 2004 - exposure to cell phone radiation during early gestation at SAR of 0.0005 W/kg (5 µW/cm2 ) affected kidney development in rats.

Salford et al. Environ Health Persp Online January 29, 2003 - Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones signal at 0.02 W/kg.

Santini et al. Pathol Biol (Paris) 50(6):369-373, 2002 - increase in complaint frequencies for tiredness, headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, in people who lived within 300 m of mobile phone base stations.

Sarimov et al. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32:1600-1608, 2004 - GSM microwaves affect human lymphocyte chromatin similar to stress response at 0.0054 W/kg.

Schwartz et al. Bioelectromagnetics 11(4):349-358, 1990 - calcium movement in the heart affected by RFR at SAR of 0.00015 W/kg. Calcium is important in muscle contraction. Changes in calcium can affect heart functions.

Somosy et al. Scanning Microsc 5(4):1145-1155, 1991 - RFR at 0.024 W/kg caused molecular and structural changes in cells of mouse embryos.

Stagg et al. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):230-236, 1997- glioma cells exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.0059 W/kg showed significant increases in thymidine incorporation, which may be an indication of an increase in cell division.

Stark et al. J Pineal Res 22(4):171-176, 1997 - a two- to seven-fold increase of salivary melatonin concentration was observed in dairy cattle exposed to RFR from a radio transmitter antenna.

Tattersall et al. Brain Res 904(1):43-53, 2001 - low-intensity RFR (0.0016 - 0.0044 W/kg) can modulate the function of a part of the brain called the hippocampus, in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be consistent with reported behavioral effects of RFR, since the hippocampus is involved in learning and memory.

Vangelova et al. Cent Eur J Public Health 10(1-2):24-28, 2002 - operators of satellite station exposed to low dose (0.1127 J/kg) of RFR over a 24-hr shift showed an increased excretion of stress hormones.

Velizarov et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 48(1):177-180, 1999 - showed a decrease in cell proliferation (division) after

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

exposure to RFR of 0.000021 - 0.0021 W/kg.

Veyret et al. Bioelectromagnetics 12(1):47-56, 1991 - low intensity RFR at SAR of 0.015 W/kg affects functions of the immune system.

Wolke et al. Bioelectromagnetics 17(2):144-153, 1996 - RFR at 0.001W/kg affects calcium concentration in heart muscle cells of guinea pigs.

Return to Top of Document

The International Association of Fire Fighters recognizes IAFF Local 3368, Carpinteria-Summerland, California, who brought this issue to the attention of our membership through the Resolution 15, submitted through our biennial convention in August 2004. Additionally, the following local affiliates provided support for the passage of the resolution: Brookline, Massachusetts, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. We also acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Henry C. Lai, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario; Janet Newton, President of the EMR Policy Institute; and Susan Foster Ambrose for their technical support and continued passion to protect the health and safety of fire fighters and emergency medical personnel. Finally, we thank Dr. Leslie Plachta and the Safe Ossining Schools for their research efforts and their battle to stop siting cell towers on Ossining, New York schools. RMD; 3/2005

Programs & Services Departments Burn Fund Resources Communications & Media Center of Excellence Education and Human Relations FIREPAC Fire and EMS Operations How to Become a Fire Fighter Governmental & Public Policy FIRE OPS 101 Grants Administration Fire Ground Survival HazMat Fit to Survive Health & Safety HazMat Training Human Relations IAFF Financial Corporation IAFF Canada Job Center Labor Issues IAFF Media Awards Contest Legal Wellness-Fitness Initiative Membership FireRescue1 Academy Pension Resources Purdue University Global Political Department IAFF-MDA IAFF En Français Peer Support Training Related Sites IAFF Foundation IAFF History Fire Fighter Quarterly IAFF-TV ALTS 2019 Convention 2018

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

IAFF Alumni IAFF Honor Roll IAFF Frontline Blog IAFF Motorcycle Group IAFF Wine Club Canada International Fire Fighters Union Alliance Union Sportsmen's Alliance About IAFF Social Websites About Us

© 2019 - IAFF

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of- ways/ USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES & ORDINANCES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WIRELESS FACILITIES SMALL CELLS From coast to coast local governments are taking action to protect their communities from the unfettered deployment of 4G and 5G “small cell” wireless facilities. Several cities are passing ordinances that strictly limit the buildout. Many policymakers ask “What are other cities doing?” This page is a compilation of top examples of what cities are doing to protect their communities. For each city we provide a short synopsis along with a link to download the ordinance or policy. Scroll down to see the City and policy. Please download and share these examples with your community. Local ordinances note various purposes such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Some combine several of these approaches. Importantly, federal pre-emption has been exaggerated. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements for example. Please consider these two useful documents that came out of the efforts in Montgomery County Maryland by the law office of Mark C. Del Biancoand which clarify what localities can and cannot do in terms of procedural requirements for companies.

 12/ 20/2018 “Summary of Proposed FCC Small Cell Order”: A critical read on the FCC order.  10/2018 Memo: “Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments”

See more resources on 5G – including the research in health effects and impacts to people, trees and wildlife here. Wireless radiation has harmful biological effects levels far below government limits. Examples of areas addressed in these ordinances: LOCATION

 Prohibiting small cell installations in residential areas, certain streets, etc  Requiring installations to be a certain distance away from residences, schools, hospitals, and/or other installations  Specifying that installations must be relocated if/when they would interfere with a public project AESTHETICS / ENVIRONMENT

 Aesthetic, design, and noise requirements such as colocation, camouflage, height and light limits, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE / LEGAL

 Requiring that residents who will be within a certain distance of an installation be notified  Instating automatic time limits for permits  Requiring annual recertification fees  Requiring permittees to defend and indemnify the city from any liabilities arising from permits and the installation, operation and maintenance of small cell installations  Reserving the right to hire independent consultants at the applicant’s expense

OTHER

 Appointing a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network

EXAMPLES OF POLICIES & ORDINANCES Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians 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. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information to this page. 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. 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 Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network Ordinance modeled after Mill Valley’s:

 Small cells prohibited in residential zones  1500 feet separation  City to study citywide fiberoptic cable network.

Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance No. 819 to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G

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 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 Palos Vardes, 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 Vardes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Monterey California Monterey California has now included that it can deny outright an incomplete application “without prejudice”. That stops the shotclock, and it allows an application to be resubmitted all over again along with paying the fees again. to be updated soon. 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 PDF News Stories Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community 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 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 News Stories https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/27/ross-valley-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/ 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 Other Links http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/ 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” 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. 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

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 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 eCode Chapter 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 Sonoma, California: Report and Urgency Ordinance On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance. “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 PDF 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

This document also reviews other Cities 5G small cell policies. News stories “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

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

Holyoke, MA: Initial Request

 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 Booneville, Arkansas, September 2018 Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones News Stories Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018 OTHER ACTIONS Monterey, California: Verizon’s application denied Commissioners overruled staff and voted 7-0 to deny telecom giant Verizon’s small cell application Small Cell Towers nixed in 7-hour Monterey Planning Commission

 http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Los Angeles, California: Deal with Verizon; letter from Mayor to FCC

 “in exchange for amenities such as free Wi-Fi in Skid Row and at recreation centers, $400,000 of scholarship money, and launching an innovation center in the city, L.A. is charging Verizon just $175 per device per year for 10 years for up to 1,000 installations, plus the cost of electricity.” (LA Times)  “In a letter to the FCC, Mayor Eric Garcetti urged the commission to rewrite the ruling before its adoption, arguing that the decision would “insert confusion into the market, and sow mistrust between my technology team and the carriers with whom we have already reached agreements.”” (LA Times)

News Stories LA Times: 5G service rolls out — but not without controversy 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 September 2018 The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information. Kelly Clancy

From: Amanda Malmquist Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 9:58 PM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller; 2019 at 9:03 AM Ellen Marks Subject: Re: 5G Issue- attn: Moraga Town Council and Moraga Planning Committee Attachments: Towards 5G communication systems Are there health implications.pdf; Towards 5G communication systems Are there health implications.docx; PARENTS CONCERNED AS FOURTH CHILD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER WHILE ATTENDING CALIFORNIA SCHOOL WITH CELL PHONE TOWER ON CAMPUS.pdf; 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion- Public health and environmental implications.docx; Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health.pdf; Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Council and Planning Commission Members,

Please see attached for additional peer reviewed, published data proving wireless radiation is harmful to the health of humans, and an article from Newsweek on a story I've been following from Ripon California. With the case in Ripon, it looks like Sprint has turned off the cell tower on school property and will be removing it, but it's too late and no matter what lawsuits come of this, the kids affected and their families will have no justice. I recently found out that one of the kids affected, now has multiple brain tumors and there's nothing doctors can do for him. This story speaks to me as a mom, because I can't imagine the hell these kids and parents are going through. I would do anything to protect my child, and I'm asking for your help to prevent this same situation from happening in Moraga.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:02 PM Amanda Malmquist wrote: Dear Moraga Planning Commission and Moraga Town Council Representatives,

I am a third generation Lamorinda homeowner and resident: My parents still live in Moraga in the home I grew up in, and my husband and I recently moved to Moraga last year with our 1.5 year old son Zachary. Recently, I have become aware that telecommunications companies are planning to place new 5G “small cell” towers throughout our communities, and I’m concerned about many aspects of this rollout, including serious risks these new small cell towers pose to our health (with children and the elderly being most vulnerable). The more I learn on this subject, the more questions and concerns I have, and I understand that the FCC has really tied our hands on this issue, and that we, as a community, are running out of time to put some limitations on where and how these new cell towers will be deployed.

I understand that there are efforts to silence critics in the form of “gag orders” to prevent protests against 5G on the premise of health concerns. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are very real health concerns including: brain cancer, lymphoma, tumors, childhood leukemia, changes in sleep patterns and disruption of REM type sleep, headaches, neurologic changes, cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases), decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time, learning disabilities, increased blood pressure, and damage to eye cells. These are all outcomes due to RF and MW radiation that have been proven and documented. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the FCC has let these private wireless companies off the hook for liability of medical issues as a result of these towers. My goal is to share with you the evidence I have found: the documented proof of significant health risk as a result of electromagnetic frequency radiation, so that you can construct a responsible policy for the rollout of 5G/small cell towers in Moraga that protects our community. Ultimately, since the FCC has absolved the

1 telecom industry of liability for health issues, the city would be the responsible party if residents get sick as a result of these small cell towers so these regulations would also help protect the city from citizen lawsuits.

A responsible policy would first and foremost state that that no Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna - Wireless Telecommunications Facility (CPMRA-WTF) or related equipment is placed in residential areas- there should be a minimum distance of at least 1,500 feet away from the closest residence since residences are where people live, sleep, and heal. The data shows that proximity is a huge factor in risk due to EMF Radiation. It isn’t until 1500 ft away from the source, that the health risks of exposure equal the risk pool of the general public. Additionally, due to the fact that children and the elderly have been shown to be most vulnerable to the effects of RF/MW radiation, there should also be protections in place to prevent placement within 1500 ft of schools, hospitals, spaces that cater to children or elderly, infant/child/or elder care facilities, etc.

I feel lucky to have grown up in Moraga: a safe small town, with beautiful natural landscape, great schools, and wonderful neighbors. The 5G wireless implementation could destroy all of the best parts of Moraga, and that would be a real tragedy. I appreciate your careful consideration of this issue, and as a constituent, I ask that you collectively put your foot down: don’t compromise the values of our community for the benefit of a wealthy industry that is gambling with our health- My son is only a year and a half, but when he's older, I would like for him to be grateful that he grew up in Moraga, too.

Please see all attached documents for information (with cited proof sources) I have gathered on this issue. I would like all this information to be recognized as part of the town record. Thank you!

Amanda (Malmquist) Conrad [email protected] (925)360-0442

5G technology is unnecessarily obtrusive to our communities- the quantity of towers required to provide ample coverage is way higher than previous generations of cell towers. Therefore, even if areas have been identitified that need better wireless coverage, 5G is not the most inobtrusive way to accomplish this https://whatis5g.info/5g/2018/01/how-many-5g-cell-towers-coming-verizon-discloses-numbers/ “…for Palo Alto: Verizon initially plans 93 4G LTE utility pole cell towers. Plus 930 5G Verizon cell towers = over 1000 new Verizon cell towers in Palo Alto. That’s for Verizon 5G alone. Then you need to factor in the other companies that will also want to “play ball” – T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T, at a minimum, with other regional players wanting in as well. Each of these will likely want to stake out similar cellular “real estate” for themselves. Will that mean 4X, 5X, 6X the number of separate 5G cell towers? And how many will “collocate” — load their cell tower gear on the same utility pole with another carrier, further overloading it? No one can predict how many more towers this will result in, but either way – new tower for each company or collocation – the RF will increase exponentially with 5G. Communities in California and other states are rolling out these utility pole cell towers now. Once a precedent is set, and one wireless carrier gets into an area, the 4G/5G expansion will be extremely difficult to stop. The time to stop/regulate these is now.”

Negative impacts on the health of humans and wildlife: 5G technology is completely untested and while there is no data that shows it is safe, there is plenty of data that suggests it is not. Citizens aren’t the only ones asking questions- Congress Members Blumenthal (CT) and Eshoo (CA) have questioned FCC regarding 5G and asked for proof (December 2018) it is safe but so far no response: https://mdsafetech.org/2018/12/31/5g-safety-questioned-by-congress-members-blumenthal-and-eshoo/ “Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue 2 dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018… The dense network of 5G antennas on every street and every 3 to 5 houses poses a risk to humans and wildlife as the signaling is complex using beam forming and phased array technology. 5G does not penetrate deeply through the body as current wireless technologies but does penetrate the skin. Ms. Levitt underscores that thin skinned amphibians and insects will be most affected by this technology with potentially disastrous results. She warns that it is not the power density or tissue absorption but the signaling characteristics that are harmful with damage even at low power levels. In addition, she emphasizes that there are inadequate protective regulations for chronic human exposures for current wireless frequencies and no oversight for wildlife or the environment. She concludes that “The FCC is completely unprepared, unable and possibly unwilling to oversee 5G for safety, even at it barrels toward us.” Link to actual letter: https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Blumenthal-Eshoo-to-FCC-Carr-5G-Safety-Dec- 2018.pdf

“Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property.” https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “There’s already too much harmful wireless radiation in our environment. People are already getting sick from wi-fi, cell towers, smart meters and cell phones. Peer reviewed published science shows harmful effects of cell tower radiation include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Studies found wireless radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. (See links to studies in this letter.) 5G would use a combination of microwaves and millimeter waves, which are scientifically shown to harm people and nature. For a quick overview of the problem see this video of a press conference with U.S. senator Blumenthal, who demands proof of safety from the FCC, and listen to comments by Blake Levitt. For more information on 5G see What is 5G? This Letter to Sebastopol 5G includes studies and quotes on the harmful health effects of 5G. See also: Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation and www.emfscientist.org Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter waves adversely affect health https://goo.gl/gbBKHL More studies here. See also: EU 5G Appeal. International Society of Doctors for Environment 5G Appeal Democracy Now reported on an investigation by The Nation “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.” and “How Big Wireless War-Gamed the Science on Risks, While Making Customers Addicted to Their Phones””

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/ “5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms. Second, the shorter length millimeter waves (MMV) used in 5G do not travel as far or through objects. This means with our current number of cell towers the cell signal will not be reliable. To compensate many more mini cell towers must be installed. It is estimated that they will need a mini cell tower every 2 to 8 houses. This will greatly increase our exposure.” http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

3 2017- Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commision demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “A 2011 article in IEEE Spectrum says that for the World Heath Organization, a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries reviewed the latest research and classified RF electromagnetic fields — from any source — as Group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer." Citing Studies completed from 2011 to 2018, Dr. Lennart Hardell and other members from that committee are calling to change RF Microwave radiation to Group 1 — a definite human carcinogen. More here.”

If 5G towers are allowed in residential neighborhoods, People with EMS would no longer be safe in their own homes. EMS is a condition recognized internationally by the World Health Organization and by the US government https://www.electrosmogprevention.org/smart-meter-resources-links/ada-accommodations-info/recognition-of- the-electromagnetic-sensitivity-as-a-disability-under-the-ada/ Electromagnetic Sensitivity is recognized by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and therefore employers are required to provide accommodation. It is estimated that upwards of 2.5% of the population suffers from some level of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS)- with ~10% of cases categorized as severe. In November 1999 the Access Board (the Federal agency devoted to the accessibility for people with disabilities) issued a proposed rule to revise and update its accessibility guidelines that included EMS as a disability and therefore a protected class. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html Firefighters have already (successfully) lobbied to ensure cell towers will not be placed at fire stations: “The last CA Cell Tower bill to pass was CA Assembly Bill 57 in 2015, which granted an exemption to fire stations because the Firefighter's Unions entered substantial evidence into the public record that cell towers on or near fire stations caused brain abnormalities in every firefighter examined”

More information on the evidence of harm to firefighters exposed to cell tower radiation from tower on department property, and their subsequent (successful) lobby for exemption from SB649- Here are links to the Firefighter study, FCC testimony regarding it and a letter from the International Firefighters Union. Links to the study data from 2004: https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0014.xml https://www.degruyter.com/…/reveh-2017-…/reveh-2017-0027.pdf Link to the FCC Testimony regarding the evidence from 2004: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022117660.pdf Link to letter from International Firefighters Union further validating health risk and reasons for exemption from SB649: http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer-risk-bills-in- these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The International Association of Firefighters opposes cell towers on fire stations after experiencing health problems like headaches, memory issues, confusion, and weakness. Dr. Gunnar Heuser conducted a study on these firefighters and saw that their brain scans showed cell damage even from low-level RF. “We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said. The California bill put fire stations exempt from cell towers, but not because they accepted the health concerns — because firefighters have a strong lobbying force. Unfortunately, for school and for residential neighborhoods, this is not the type of power they have” https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/ “Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:  DNA single and double strand breaks 4  oxidative damage  disruption of cell metabolism  increased blood brain barrier permeability  melatonin reduction  disruption to brain glucose metabolism  generation of stress proteins Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.” https://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-tower-cause-cancer-children-1362314 Ripon, CA: cluster of cancer cases in children who live near and/or attend elementary school that has a cell tower on school property.

Legislation Concerns- Communities successfully fighting back Not only is Federal (and many States’) legislation strong-arming communities and essentially forcing them to accept 5G implementation, but there are no relevant controls in place for our protection/to regulate the industry with regard to 5G. The current standard for safety was enacted in the 90’s and therefore completely irrelevant to the potential harm of this new tech. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/how-to-oppose-small-cell-5g- towers/?fbclid=IwAR3oeljD8FkacrF6SMH5oJX1sARFa4-igbFq1jMKlvVM3YO9WK61g8eN4PQ “The Federal Communications Commission and the federal government have been promoting and supporting rapid expansion of 5G. Some states have already passed laws forcing them onto communities. However people are pushing back and defeating installations. In Hillsborough California 16 cell towers were denied. Danville CA denied Verizon based on the placement was not the least intrusive means. In California SB649, which would have restricted cities ability to regulate 5G, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. The industry vision for 5G is to enable the Internet of Things, Smart Communities, driverless cars (and more), where roads and appliances (even baby diapers!) are embedded with wireless radiation transmitters that connect to cell phones, smart meters and the internet. The industry wants wireless everywhere with “small cell” towers every couple hundred feet apart! That means cell towers in our neighborhoods, near schools and parks, where we live, work and play.”

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is outdated, based on obsolete technology, and gives the power to telecom companies: https://althealthworks.com/15057/california-is-fighting-50000-new-5g-cell-towers-due-to-cancer-risk-bills-in- these-states-will-permit-their-installation-in-your-backyardyelena/ “The Telecommunication Act made sure the cell phone companies are protected, that’s for sure. The act was written based on what many call outdated science from 1996 outlining that if cities consider cell towers’ health effects, the cell company can sue them” http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “Governor Brown vetoed California's 2017 Small Cell Bill (Senate Bill 649), so, fortunately, all California cities retained their authority to regulate the operations of cell phone towers to protect residents' constitutionally-guaranteed rights to privacy and safety. Densified 4G and 5G cell towers installed at the curb sacrifices privacy because once the pole is claimed, wireless cos. or government entities can install whatever they want on the pole: video cameras, listening devices, or microwave devices that can image the interiors of homes. More here.”

“Increased Fire Risk: The heavy and bulky “Small Cell Facilities” could overload telephone poles, leading to increased fire risk. For example, Edison and four telecommunication companies were fined for overloading utility poles with antennas and equipment, which caused the poles to collapse and spark the 2007 Malibu Canyon wildfire.”

5 Beyond Wireless: Instead of diving in head first to 5G which involves destruction of our environment, risk to our health, compromise of our privacy, and will obscure the beautiful aesthetics of our community, I propose we pursue more sustainable, secure, long term options like fiber optic cable. Californian’s have already paid for this via additional fees charged in the 90’s on their phone bills- the backbone of this cable has already been laid in California and is literally waiting for someone to use it. The City of Nicasio has chosen to invest in fiber optic cable for their citizens thru this public/private partnership, giving their residents, safer, faster, more dependable and secure internet access than any wireless technology could provide: https://www.marincounty.org/main/county-press-releases/press-releases/2018/ist-broadbandwestmarin- 112918 http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/index.html “We need to halt this ill-advised Wireless-only project and enter into a public process that delivers the least intrusive means to get the fastest, most reliable and energy-efficient Internet access (Wireline fiber- optic service to our homes — without data caps) and to put any new Wireless antennas much farther away from our homes. Cell phone towers installed close to homes significantly reduces property values. A peer-reviewed study in the 2005 Appraisal Journal, said homes near cell phone towers are devalued 20% to 25%.” http://scientists4wiredtech.com/ “We seek to keep all residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and wilderness areas as free as possible from RF/MW radiation exposures. This starts by recognizing the long-con at the root the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the series of FCC regulations passed in the last 20 years that forces down communities’ throats too many unnecessary and redundant wireless networks that deprive many of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without unreasonable government surveillance, intrusion into our homes and forced exposures to a known toxic agent, RF/MW radiation, that has been proven to cause two forms of cancer, DNA damage and other adverse biological effects….. Fiber-optic networks enable data transmissions that are much faster, more reliable, safe for humans and other living organisms, and far more secure from cyber and physical attack when compared to any wireless network which relies on sending data via pulsed, microwave radiation (Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G). In addition, fiber-optic cables use only a fraction of the energy required by wireless networks.

6 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143 Outline 1. Highlights 2. Abstract 3. Keywords 4. 1. Introduction 5. 2. Materials and methods 6. 3. Results 7. 4. Conclusions 8. References Show full outline

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Volume 221, Issue 3, April 2018, Pages 367-375

Review Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

Author links open overlay panelAgostinoDi Ciaulaab Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011Get rights and content Highlights

• RF-EMF exposure is rising and health effects of are still under investigation.

• Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested.

• 5G networks could have health effects and will use MMW, still scarcely explored.

• Adequate knowledge of RF-EMF biological effects is also needed in clinical practice. • Underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases. Abstract

The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as “possible carcinogenic to humans”, and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed https://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-tower-cause-cancer-children-1362314 U.S. PARENTS CONCERNED AS FOURTH CHILD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER WHILE ATTENDING CALIFORNIA SCHOOL WITH CELL PHONE TOWER ON CAMPUS BY ANNA GIBBS ON 3/13/19 AT 10:23 PM EDT CONTINUE Play Unmute

Current Time?0:26

Duration?3:17 Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% QualityHD Fullscreen What Is A Tumor? SHARE U.S.

Parents in Ripon, California say a cell phone tower in a local schoolyard is to blame for the cancer diagnoses of four students in the last three years.

The tower, which is located at Weston Elementary, is the same as others scattered throughout the town. However, one parent told CBS Sacramento that its proximity to her son led to his 2017 brain cancer diagnosis. “We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” Monica Ferrulli said in the interview. “It’s indescribable, it’s really tough.”

Ferrulli’s son Mason was the second child to be diagnosed with cancer in just three years at the school. Mason walked by the cell phone tower daily.

She also told the Modesto Bee that when questioned, the school district cited an "obsolete American Cancer Society study" as the reasoning for keeping the tower in its current location. Ferrulli told the newspaper that parents will continue to fight and keep their children out of the school. On Tuesday, more than 200 children were absent from Weston Elementary as a form of protest. Tuesday night, the children’s parents attended a meeting of the Ripon Unified School District.

Richard Rex, whose family lives across the street from Weston School, said a bump appeared on his 11-year-old son’s abdomen a month ago. He said his son’s classroom is near the tower.

Rex’s son was taken to doctors for examinations and tests that found a tumor wrapped around his liver. The boy now has a portal for starting cancer treatment, his parents told the Bee. “They said they can shrink it and cut it out. They’re also talking liver transplant. It is very scary,” Rex said.

In a statement to Newsweek from RUSD said the school board and administration "empathizes with and support these children and their families in their recovery." The statement also said independent tests shown the tower is performing within the guidelines established as safe by current government and global standards. RUSD is 10 years into a 25-year contract with the tower's owner, Sprint, which requires it to honor the lease for this tower location. "There is no legal contractual basis on which the district can demand the cell phone company remove the tower, however, we are working together with them to come to a mutual resolution," the statement said.

Adrienne Norton, a Sprint representative, indicated that the company’s goal is to provide wireless service to Ripon residents.

“When it comes to the deployment of network infrastructure, we always strive to achieve a win/win process with local municipalities and residents,” Norton wrote.

The school district is working with Sprint to address the concerns of the community, the statement said.

A group of parents were unconvinced by the district's reassurances and hired Eric Windheim, an electromagnetic radiation specialist.

“I wouldn’t send my kids there at all, it absolutely is dangerous,” Windheim said in an interview with CBS Sacramento. “Children are still developing and their cells are still being divided. It’s the worst possible time in their life to be exposed.”

The Cochran Firm of Los Angeles has been hired to look at health effects of the cell tower and water contamination as a possible source.

According to the American Cancer Society, very few studies have focused on cell phone towers and the risk of cancer connected to them. RELATED STORIES

• California Guidelines Raise Concerns About Cellphones • Parents Worry Devices May Have Mental Health Effects • Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Lifelong Challenges In one study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. The results indicated that children who lived in a town with "higher than average RF radiation" from cell towers had a slightly increased chance of developing cancer. However, there was no limit to the type of cancer found in those children. This study estimated the children’s possible exposure based on the number of towers in their town and how strong the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how far their home or school was from a tower.

“This limitation reduces confidence in the results of the study,” the American Cancer Society article said.

REQUEST REPRINT, SUBMIT CORRECTION OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143 Outline 1. Highlights 2. Abstract 3. Keywords 4. 1. Introduction 5. 2. Materials and methods 6. 3. Results 7. 4. Conclusions 8. References Show full outline

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Volume 221, Issue 3, April 2018, Pages 367-375

Review Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

Author links open overlay panelAgostinoDi Ciaulaab Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011Get rights and content Highlights

• RF-EMF exposure is rising and health effects of are still under investigation.

• Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested.

• 5G networks could have health effects and will use MMW, still scarcely explored.

• Adequate knowledge of RF-EMF biological effects is also needed in clinical practice. • Underrating the problem could lead to a further rise in noncommunicable diseases. Abstract

The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as “possible carcinogenic to humans”, and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases. https://www.newsweek.com/can-cell-phone-tower-cause-cancer-children-1362314 U.S. PARENTS CONCERNED AS FOURTH CHILD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER WHILE ATTENDING CALIFORNIA SCHOOL WITH CELL PHONE TOWER ON CAMPUS BY ANNA GIBBS ON 3/13/19 AT 10:23 PM EDT CONTINUE Play Unmute

Current Time?0:26

Duration?3:17 Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% QualityHD Fullscreen What Is A Tumor? SHARE U.S.

Parents in Ripon, California say a cell phone tower in a local schoolyard is to blame for the cancer diagnoses of four students in the last three years.

The tower, which is located at Weston Elementary, is the same as others scattered throughout the town. However, one parent told CBS Sacramento that its proximity to her son led to his 2017 brain cancer diagnosis. “We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” Monica Ferrulli said in the interview. “It’s indescribable, it’s really tough.”

Ferrulli’s son Mason was the second child to be diagnosed with cancer in just three years at the school. Mason walked by the cell phone tower daily.

She also told the Modesto Bee that when questioned, the school district cited an "obsolete American Cancer Society study" as the reasoning for keeping the tower in its current location. Ferrulli told the newspaper that parents will continue to fight and keep their children out of the school. On Tuesday, more than 200 children were absent from Weston Elementary as a form of protest. Tuesday night, the children’s parents attended a meeting of the Ripon Unified School District.

Richard Rex, whose family lives across the street from Weston School, said a bump appeared on his 11-year-old son’s abdomen a month ago. He said his son’s classroom is near the tower.

Rex’s son was taken to doctors for examinations and tests that found a tumor wrapped around his liver. The boy now has a portal for starting cancer treatment, his parents told the Bee. “They said they can shrink it and cut it out. They’re also talking liver transplant. It is very scary,” Rex said.

In a statement to Newsweek from RUSD said the school board and administration "empathizes with and support these children and their families in their recovery." The statement also said independent tests shown the tower is performing within the guidelines established as safe by current government and global standards. RUSD is 10 years into a 25-year contract with the tower's owner, Sprint, which requires it to honor the lease for this tower location. "There is no legal contractual basis on which the district can demand the cell phone company remove the tower, however, we are working together with them to come to a mutual resolution," the statement said.

Adrienne Norton, a Sprint representative, indicated that the company’s goal is to provide wireless service to Ripon residents.

“When it comes to the deployment of network infrastructure, we always strive to achieve a win/win process with local municipalities and residents,” Norton wrote.

The school district is working with Sprint to address the concerns of the community, the statement said.

A group of parents were unconvinced by the district's reassurances and hired Eric Windheim, an electromagnetic radiation specialist.

“I wouldn’t send my kids there at all, it absolutely is dangerous,” Windheim said in an interview with CBS Sacramento. “Children are still developing and their cells are still being divided. It’s the worst possible time in their life to be exposed.”

The Cochran Firm of Los Angeles has been hired to look at health effects of the cell tower and water contamination as a possible source.

According to the American Cancer Society, very few studies have focused on cell phone towers and the risk of cancer connected to them. RELATED STORIES

• California Guidelines Raise Concerns About Cellphones • Parents Worry Devices May Have Mental Health Effects • Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Lifelong Challenges In one study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. The results indicated that children who lived in a town with "higher than average RF radiation" from cell towers had a slightly increased chance of developing cancer. However, there was no limit to the type of cancer found in those children. This study estimated the children’s possible exposure based on the number of towers in their town and how strong the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how far their home or school was from a tower.

“This limitation reduces confidence in the results of the study,” the American Cancer Society article said.

REQUEST REPRINT, SUBMIT CORRECTION OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

☆ Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health T Martin L. Pall

Washington State University, 638 NE 41st Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-3312, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric ef- Electromagnetic field (EMF) fects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of Brain impact these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being Testis/sperm count and quality documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi Impact of pulsation and polarization and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main Activation of voltage-gated calcium channels action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF inter- Wi-Fi or WiFi action with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other me- chanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose- response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.

1. Introduction and in human beings (Table 1). Each of the effects reported above in from 2 to 11 studies, have an Wi-Fi (also known as WiFi or WLAN) is a wireless network involving extensive literature for their occurrence in response to various other at least one Wi-Fi antenna connected to the internet and a series of non-thermal microwave frequency EMFs, discussed in detail below. computers, laptops and/or other wireless devices communicating These include (see Table 1) findings that Wi-Fi exposures produce im- wirelessly with the Wi-Fi antenna. In this way, each such wireless pacts on the testis leading to lowered male fertility; oxidative stress; communication device can communicate wirelessly with the internet. apoptosis (a process that has an important causal role in neurodegen- All the studies reviewed here were of Wi-Fi using the 2.4 GHz band, erative disease); cellular DNA damage (a process causing cancer and although there is also a 5 GHz band reserved for possible Wi-Fi use. germ line mutations); neuropsychiatric changes including EEG changes; Telecommunications industry-linked individuals and groups have hormonal changes. claimed that there are no and cannot possibly be any health impacts of The discussion here focuses on those Wi-Fi effects which have been Wi-Fi (Foster and Moulder, 2013; Berezow and Bloom, 2017). However found by multiple Wi-Fi studies and have been previously confirmed by with Wi-Fi exposures becoming more and more common and with many non-thermal exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs. The 1971/ of our exposures being without our consent, there is much concern 72 U.S. Office of Naval Medical Research study (Glaser, 1971) reported about possible Wi-Fi health effects. This paper is not focused on anec- the following changes related to testis or sperm: 1. Decreased testos- dotal reports but rather on 23 controlled, scientific studies of such terone leading to lowered testis size. 2. Histological changes in testi- health-related effects in animals, cells including human cells in culture cular epithelial structure. 3. Gross testicular histological changes. 4.

☆ For submission to the Wireless Radiation and Health special issue of the journal Environmental Research. E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035 Received 22 September 2017; Received in revised form 20 January 2018; Accepted 23 January 2018 Available online 21 March 2018 0013-9351/ © 2018 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/). M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Table 1 Summary of health impacts of Wi-Fi EMF exposures.

Citation(s) Health Effects

Atasoy et al. (2013); Özorak et al. (2013); Aynali et al. (2013); Çiftçi et al. (2015); Tök Oxidative stress, in some studies effects lowered by antioxidants et al. (2014); Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Ghazizadeh and Nazıroğlu (2014); Yüksel et al. (2016); Othman et al. (2017a, 2017b); Topsakal et al. (2017) Atasoy et al. (2013); Shokri et al. (2015); Dasdag et al. (2015); Avendaño et al. (2012); Sperm/testicular damage, male infertility Yildiring et al. (2015); Özorak et al. (2013); Oni et al. (2011); Akdag et al. (2016) Papageorgiou et al. (2011); Maganioti et al. (2010); Othman et al. (2017a, 2017b); Neuropsychiatric changes including EEG; prenatal Wi-Fi leads to post-natal neural Hassanshahi et al. (2017) development, increased cholinesterase; decreased special learning; Wi-Fi led to greatly lowered ability to distinguish familiar from novel objects, changes in GABA and cholinergic transmission Shokri et al. (2015); Dasdag et al. (2015); Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Topsakal et al. Apoptosis (programmed cell death), elevated apoptotic markers (2017) Avendaño et al. (2012); Atasoy et al. (2013); Akdag et al. (2016) Cellular DNA damage Saili et al. (2015); Yüksel et al. (2016); Topsakal et al. (2017) Endocrine changes incl.: Catecholamines, pancreatic endocrine dysfunction, prolactin, progesterone and estrogen Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Ghazizadeh and Nazıroğlu (2014) Calcium overload Aynali et al. (2013) Melatonin lowering; sleep disruption Othman et al. (2017a) MicroRNA expression (brain) Othman et al. (2017a) Abnormal postnatal development Çiftçi et al. (2015) Disrupts development of teeth Saili et al. (2015) Cardiac changes, blood pressure disruption; erythrocyte damage Lee et al. (2014) Growth stimulation of adipose stem cells (role in obesity?)

Decreased spermatogenesis. Glaser (1971) also reported a total of 35 the cause of each of these various other effects, as discussed below; neurological/neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal EMF exposures, apoptosis has central roles in neurodegenerative diseases; the neu- including 9 central nervous system effects, 4 autonomic system effects, ropsychiatric effects are almost certainly caused by the impact of EMFs 17 psychological disorders, 4 behavioral changes and EEG changes. It on brain structure which is extensively documented and, in my opinion, also reported 7 types of chromosomal aberrations several of which are produces many impacts (Pall, 2016b). A recent meta-analysis shows known to be caused by chromosomal double stranded DNA breaks, 8 major lowering of sperm counts and sperm quality in many countries types of endocrine changes, and cell death (what we now call apop- around the world, with declines of over 50% in all advanced technology tosis). Glaser (1971) also provided over 1000 different citations each countries (Levine et al., 2017). The senior author of this study suggested reporting various types of non-thermal microwave frequency EMF ef- that this effect alone may lead to human extinction (No authors listed, fects. Consequently, the existence of 5 types of Wi-Fi effects, each 2017). Given the major impact of EMF exposures on sperm count and supported by multiple Wi-Fi studies were already well-supported as quality in human and in animal studies, the pattern of evidence on male general non-thermal EMF effects back in 1971, 47 years ago: effects on fertility is very worrying. the testis and sperm production, neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, One thing needs to be clarified, here, however. In the two studies on endocrine effects, attacks on cellular DNA and increased apoptosis/cell calcium overload following Wi-Fi exposure, such overload was mea- death. sured a substantial time period following exposure. Overload was The 146 page review published by Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973) shown to be caused, to a substantial effect, by increased TRPV1 re- found that in studies of histological changes in rodents, the three most ceptor activity (Çiğ and Nazıroğlu, 2015; Ghazizadeh and Nazıroğlu, sensitive organs in the body to non-thermal microwave EMFs were the 2014). The TRPV1 receptor is known to be activated by oxidative stress. nervous system (including the brain), followed closely by the heart and It is my view, discussed in detail below, that there is a central me- the testis. They also reported changes in neuroendocrine tissues and chanism that acts to produce excessive intracellular calcium im- increased cell death in multiple tissues. Thus those pre-1973 rodent mediately following EMF exposure and that the oxidative stress/TRPV1 studies already showed that other EMFs caused 4 of the repeated, re- activation is secondary. cently documented Wi-Fi effects: changes in testis structure/function, We have then, major impacts of non-thermal EMF exposures on both neurological effects, increased cell death (possibly via apoptosis) and of the most important intercellular regulatory systems in the body, the endocrine effects. Findings from our longer list of EMF reviews of non- nervous system and the endocrine systems. We have major impacts on thermal effects are summarized in Table 2. what may be the most important intracellular regulatory system, the Each of the 7 Wi-Fi effects found in 2–11 studies (Table 1), have also calcium regulatory system. And we also have non-thermal EMFs at- been found to be caused by other microwave frequency EMFs, in a tacking the DNA of our cells, putting our biological inheritance at great much larger literature (Table 2). From 10 to 16 reviews extensively risk. As living organisms, EMFs attack each of the most important document each of these seven effects as general microwave frequency functions that go to the heart of our human complexities. effects (Table 2). These are, therefore, general effects produced by such Despite all of these clear and important, non-thermal effects, and EMFs. Each of these 7 repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects should, therefore, the fact that there was substantial evidence for many of them already be considered established Wi-Fi effects. The author is not aware of any known before 1973, our current U.S. and international safety guidelines genuine Wi-Fi studies on these 7 effects that reported no statistically are still based on considering only thermal effects. significant evidence of effect. Each of these 7 is very serious: Oxidative stress has causal roles in most chronic human diseases; cellular DNA damage can cause cancer, 2. Wi-Fi and other wireless communication EMFs are pulsed, thus producing a partial explanation for EMF cancer causation; because leading to larger biological impacts; These EMFs are also such DNA damage occurs in sperm cells (Atasoy et al., 2013; Avendaño polarized, also producing larger effects; Dose response curves are et al., 2012; Akdag et al., 2016; Adams et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014; often both non-linear and non-monotone Asghari et al., 2016), such damage is highly likely to produce mutations that impact future generations; calcium overload is highly likely to be There are three patterns of EMF action, each of which is very im- portant and each of which is almost universally ignored by the

406 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Table 2 Reviews of Non-thermal Effects of Microwave Frequency EMFs Similar to Those Found in Multiple Wi-Fi Studies.

Non-thermal effects Citations

Cellular DNA damage Glaser (1971); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Aitken and De Iuliis (2007); Hardell and Sage (2008); Hazout et al. (2008); Phillips et al. (2009); Ruediger (2009); Makker et al. (2009); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Batista Napotnik et al. (2010); Yakymenko et al. (2011); Pall (2013, 2015b); Asghari et al. (2016); Pall (2018) Changes in testis structure, lowered sperm count/ Glaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Aitken and De Iuliis (2007); Hazout et al. (2008); Desai et al. (2009); Gye quality and Park (2012); Nazıroğlu et al. (2013); Carpenter (2013); Adams et al. (2014); Liu et al. (2014); Houston et al. (2016); La Vignera et al. (2012); Makker et al. (2009) Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects Glaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Lai (1994); Grigor'ev (1996); Hardell and Sage (2008); Makker et al. (2009); Khurana et al. (2010); Levitt and Lai (2010); Consales et al. (2012); Carpenter (2013); Pall (2016b); Belyaev et al. (2016); Sangün et al. (2016); Kaplan et al. (2016) Apoptosis/cell death Glaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Batista Napotnik et al. (2010); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Pall (2013, 2016b); Asghari et al. (2016); Sangün et al. (2016) Calcium overload Adey (1981, 1988); Walleczek (1992); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Gye and Park (2012); Pall (2013, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b)); Asghari et al. (2016) Endocrine effects Glaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Hardell and Sage (2008); Gye and Park (2012); Hardell and Sage (2008); Makker et al. (2009); Pall (2015b); Sangün et al. (2016); Asghari et al. (2016) Oxidative stress, free radical damage Raines (1981); Houston et al. (2016); Hardell and Sage (2008); Hazout et al. (2008); Desai et al. (2009); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Yakymenko et al. (2011); Consales et al. (2012); La Vignera et al. (2012); Nazıroğlu et al. (2013); Yakymenko et al. (2015); Pall (2013, 2018); Dasdag and Akdag (2016); Wang and Zhang (2017) telecommunications industry and industry-linked organizations. The ground at two locations each with somewhat different exposures within most extensively reviewed of these is that pulsed EMFs are usually an antenna park. The exposure levels at both sites were well within much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (also known as safety guidelines, so if the safety guidelines have any biological re- continuous wave) EMFs of identical frequency and similar average in- levance, there should have been no apparent effects. It takes about 30 tensity (Osipov, 1965; Pollack and Healer, 1967; Creighton et al., 1987; days for mice to go through gestation. At the higher level exposure, the Grigor'ev, 1996; Belyaev, 2005, 2015; Markov, 2007; Van Boxem et al., pairs produced one litter of lower than normal size, and a second litter 2014; Pall, 2015b; Panagopoulos et al., 2015b). This pattern of action is with lowered numbers of progeny; after that they were completely particularly important because all wireless communication devices, sterile or had extremely low fertility (Magras and Xenos, 1997). At the including Wi-Fi (Panagopoulos et al., 2015b; Maret, 2015) commu- other site, the mating pairs produced four litters, with decreasing nicate via pulsations and are likely to be particularly dangerous as numbers of progeny over time followed by complete sterility. In both consequence of this. Panagopoulos et al., 2015b have argued that the groups, the mating and possible subsequent gestatation for the fifth more pulsed they are, the more damaging EMFs will be and while this possible litter were performed under conditions of no EMF exposure, may still be questioned, it may well be a roughly applicable general- but the fertility effects were not reversed; therefore fertility effects may ization. become irreversible, suggesting a similar pattern to the brain related It is also true that artificial EMFs are polarized and this makes ar- effects of EMFs. It should be noted that Özorak el al (2013) showed that tificial EMFs particularly dangerous (Belyaev, 2005, 2015; Wi-Fi exposure impacted animal reproduction and that (Atasoy et al., Panagopoulos et al., 2015a). Polarized EMFs put much larger forces of 2013; Shokri et al., 2015; Dasdag et al., 2015; Avendaño et al., 2012; electrically charged chemical groups than do non-polarized EMFs Yildiring et al., 2015; Oni et al., 2011; Akdag et al., 2016) suggest this (Panagopoulos et al., 2015a), an observation that is relevant to the as well from the Wi-Fi impacts on testis structure and sperm production. main mechanism of EMF action in living cells discussed below. Mutation accumulation produced by cellular DNA damage is likely It has often been found that there are windows of exposure where to be both cumulative and irreversible, as well, because later mutations specific intensity ranges produce maximum biological effects, which are highly unlikely to reverse previously occurring mutations. drop off going to both lower or higher intensities (Belyaev, 2005, 2015; We have therefore reason to think that such effects as brain damage Pall, 2015b). It can be seen from this that dose-response curves are to animal brains, neuropsychiatric effects in humans, reproductive often both non-linear and non-monotone whereas industry linked dysfunction in mice and mutational effects, are each cumulative. Those groups often assume a linear and therefore monotone dose-response same effects may be completely or largely irreversible. One thing that curve. this should tell us is that the short-term Wi-Fi studies shown in Table 1 may greatly underestimate the damage Wi-Fi may do over much longer 3. EMF effects are often cumulative and irreversible time periods. Given the fact that Wi-Fi has been placed in most schools, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, commercial aircraft and airports as One question that has been raised about the effects of these low- well as in many homes and that Wi-Fi hot spots are becoming in- intensity EMFs producing biological effects is are they cumulative? I am creasingly common in cities around the world, we should expect mas- ff aware of three different types of evidence for cumulative effects. Three sive cumulative Wi-Fi e ects in many people. A second tentative in- of the human occupational exposure studies from the 1970's reviewed ference is that false assurances of safety on the part of industry are ff in Raines (1981), showed that effects increased substantially with in- likely to lead to much more severe e ects on people exposed to Wi-Fi or creasing time of exposure to a particular type and intensity of EMF. other EMFs; rather than leading them to protect themselves or their The impacts of such EMFs on animal brains were reviewed in children by avoiding exposures or demanding that others stop non- Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973) and discussed in Pall (2016b). Initially voluntary exposures, they are likely to avoid protective changes or be exposures over period of 1–2 months produced relatively modest prevented from doing such protective changes. A third inference is that ff ffi changes in structure of the brain and the neurons and when exposures these e ects may be among the more di cult ones for us to attribute to ff ceased, most of the structural changes disappeared – that is the changes EMF exposure. We are much more aware of e ects that occur rapidly were largely reversible. However more months of exposure produced than those that take months or years before they become readily ap- much more severe impacts on brain and neuronal structure and these parent. were irreversible (Tolgskaya and Gordon, 1973; Pall, 2016b). Magras and Xenos (1997) put pairs of young mice into cages on the

407 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

4. Wi-Fi and other EMFs may be particularly damaging to young single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer people section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of Most arguments that have been made that microwave frequency physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges EMFs may be much more damaging to young children have centered on will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the much smaller skulls and skull thickness in young children, in- the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a creasing the exposure of their brains to EMFs (Gandhi and Kang, 2001; high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are Gandhi et al., 2012). However there are other arguments to be made. highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane EMFs have been shown to be particularly active in producing effects on is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of embryonic stem cells (Lee et al., 2014; Belyaev et al., 2009; Markovà these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor et al., 2010; Czyz et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2016; Bhargav et al., 2015; with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, Odaci et al., 2008; Uchugonova et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2015; Teven the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately et al., 2012). Because such stem cells occur at much higher cell densities 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics in children, with stem cell densities the highest in the fetus and de- predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs creasing with increasing age (Belyaev et al., 2009; Markovà et al., via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs 2010), impacts on young children are likely to be much higher than in are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the adults. The decreased DNA repair and increased DNA damage following main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same EMF exposure strongly suggest that young children may be increasingly direction. susceptible to cancer following such exposures (Belyaev et al., 2009; There are also additional findings pointing to the voltage sensor as Markovà et al., 2010; Czyz et al., 2004). EMF action on stem cells may the direct target of the EMFs. In addition to the VGCCs, there are also also cause young children to be particularly susceptible to disruption of voltage-gated sodium, potassium and chloride channels, with each of brain development (Xu et al., 2016; Bhargav et al., 2015), something these having a voltage sensor similar to those found in the VGCCs. Lu that may be relevant to autism causation. These are all very proble- et al. (2015) reported that voltage gated sodium channels, in addition matic issues and we cannot rule out the possibility that there are other to the VGCCs were activated by EMFs. Tabor et al. (2014) found that problematic issues as well. Redmayne and Johansson (2015) reviewed Mauthner cells, specialized neurons with special roles in triggering the literature showing that there are age-related effects, such that rapid escape mechanisms in fish, were almost instantaneously activated young people are more sensitive to EMF effects. It follows from these by electrical pulses, which acted via voltage-gated sodium channel various findings that the placement of Wi-Fi into schools around the activation to subsequently produce large [Ca2+]i increases. Zhang country may well be a high level threat to the health of our children as et al. (2016) reported that in addition to the VGCCs, potassium and well being a threat to teachers and any very sensitive fetuses teachers chloride channels were each activated by EMFs, although these other may be carrying, as well. voltage-gated ion channels had relatively modest roles compared with the VGCCs in producing biological effects. Each of these three studies, 5. How do EMF exposures lead to non-thermal health impacts? the Lu et al. (2015) study, the Tabor et al. (2014) study and the Zhang et al. (2016) study used specific blockers for these other voltage-gated The author found the answer to this question in the already pub- ion channels to determine their roles. The Tabor et al. (2014) study also lished scientific literature (Pall, 2013). That study showed that in 24 used genetic probing to determine the role of the voltage-gated sodium different studies [there are now a total of 26 Pall (2015b)], effects of channels. Lu et al. (2015) also used whole cell patch clamp measure- low-intensity EMFs, including microwave frequency and also extremely ments to measure the rapid influx of both sodium and calcium into the low frequency EMFs, static electrical fields and static magnetic fields cell via the voltage-gated channels following EMF exposure. Sodium could be blocked by calcium channel blockers, drugs that are specific influx, particularly in electrically active cells, act in the normal phy- for blocking voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). There were 5 siology to depolarize the plasma membrane, leading to VGCC activation different types of calcium channel blockers used in these studies, each such that the voltage-gated sodium channels may act primarily via in- thought to be highly specific, each structurally distinct and each direct activation of the VGCCs. In summary then, we have evidence that binding to a different site on the VGCCs. In studies where multiple ef- in animal including human cells, seven distinct classes of voltage-gated fects were studied, all studied effects were blocked or greatly lowered ion channels are each activated by EMF exposures: From the Pall (2013) by calcium channel blockers. These studies show that EMFs produce review, four classes of voltage-gated ion channels were shown from diverse non-thermal effects via VGCC activation Pall (2013, 2014, calcium channel blocker studies, to be activated by EMFs, L-type, T- 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b)) in many human and animal cells. In type, N-type and P/Q –type VGCCs. In this paragraph we have evidence plant cells, EMFs activate somewhat similar calcium channels and that three other channels are also activated, voltage-gated sodium produce somewhat similar effects on oxidative stress, cellular DNA channels, voltage-gated potassium channels and voltage-gated chloride damage and calcium signaling (Pall, 2016a). Furthermore, many dif- channels. Furthermore the plant studies strongly suggest that the so ferent effects shown to be produced in repeated studies by EMF ex- called TPC channels, which contain a similar voltage sensor, are acti- posures, including the effects discussed above, can be produced by vated in plants allowing calcium influx into plants to produce similar downstream effects of VGCC activation, via increased [Ca2+]i, as EMF-induced responses (Pall, 2016a). One can put those observations discussed in detail below. together with the powerful findings from the physics, that the electrical Before leaving this issue, it is important to discuss why the VGCCs forces on the voltage-sensor are stunningly strong, something like 7.2 are so sensitive to activation by these low-intensity EMFs. The VGCCs million times stronger than the forces on the singly charged groups in each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the the aqueous phases of the cell. Now you have a stunningly powerful plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, argument that the voltage sensor is the predominant direct target of the for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor EMFs. helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a There is one additional finding that should be discussed here. In a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is study published by Pilla (2012), it was found that pulsed EMFs pro- within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical duced an “instantaneous” increase in calcium/calmodulin-dependent forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons nitric oxide synthesis in cells in culture. What Pilla (2012) showed was (Pall, 2015b, 2015a, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor that following EMF exposure, the cells in culture, must have produced a make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a large increase in [Ca2 + ]i, this in turn produced a large increase in

408 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416 nitric oxide synthesis, the nitric oxide diffused out of the cells and out of inhibit cytochrome P450s involved in steroid hormone synthesis, low- the aqueous medium above the cells into the gas phase, where the nitric ering levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone (sex hormones). oxide was detected by a nitric oxide electrode. This entire sequence The main pathophysiological effects of EMF exposures are produced occurred in less than 5 s. This eliminates almost any conceivable in- via excessive calcium signaling (lower left) and the peroxynitrite direct effect, except possibly via plasma membrane depolarization. pathway (lower right). Peroxynitrite levels are elevated because both Therefore that the pulsed EMFs are acting directly on the voltage sen- NO and superoxide are elevated by increased [Ca2+]i with NO and sors of the VGCCs and possibly the voltage-gated sodium channels, to superoxide reacting with each other to form peroxynitrite. Peroxynitrite produce the [Ca2 + ]i increase. and its CO2 adduct, can break down to produce reactive free radicals, Why is it that the VGCCs, acting via calcium influx, seem to be much hydroxyl radical, carbonate radical and NO2 radical which produce more important in producing EMF effects than are the other voltage- oxidative stress. These various oxidants act to produce greatly elevated gated ion channels? Probably for three reasons: 1. Ca2+ ions under NF-kappaB activity, leading to inflammation. All of this biochemistry resting conditions in cells have about a 10,000-fold concentration and physiology is well-accepted and widely known with a single ex- gradient driving them into the cell, and over a million-fold electro- ception: The role of protein kinase G in raising Nrf2 has only recently chemical gradient also driving them into the cell. Because of this, one been reviewed (Pall and Levine, 2015). can have huge calcium influxes upon channel activation. 2. [Ca2 + ]i The ways in which these mechanisms can produce each of the seven produces many important regulatory effects, such that over activation effects produced by Wi-Fi, as well as other microwave frequency EMFs, of those effects can have very large pathophysiological consequences. 3. are described in Table 3. Sustained elevation of [Ca2+]i produces major cell damage. It can be seen from Table 3, that there are plausible mechanisms by which each of those seven effects can be produced by VGCC activation via known pathways. Given the complexities of biology, the mechan- 6. How can the Wi-Fi effects be produced by EMF triggered VGCC isms described in Table 3 may, in some cases, be over simplified. activation? There is one other finding, not related to the Wi-Fi findings, that is included in Table 3. A question that was raised in review of the paper Can the various effects produced by Wi-Fi and by other microwave was whether the heat shock stress elevation found following EMF ex- frequency EMFs be produced by the downstream effects of VGCC acti- posure in many studies, could be produced by VGCC activation. As you vation? In order to determine that, one needs to consider the various can see from Table 3, it can be. downstream effects of VGCC activation, summarized in Fig. 1 and how these are likely to produce each of the effects of Wi-Fi and other mi- crowave frequency EMFs. Let's consider Fig. 1. 7. Other proposed biophysical mechanisms As shown in the top left section of Fig. 1, microwave and lower frequency EMFs act via VGCC activation to produce increases in in- One question that can be asked is how the VGCC activation me- tracellular calcium [Ca2+]i. All of the downsteam effects of VGCC chanism compares with other biophysical models of non-thermal EMF activation considered in Fig. 1 are produced by elevated (often ex- effects. Belyaev (2015) has discussed a number of what he describes as cessive) [Ca2+]i. biophysical models which are, therefore considered here. These models Just to the right of [Ca2+]i in Fig. 1, you will see that elevated are basically theoretical models of how the weak electrical forces of the [Ca2+]i produced increases in nitric oxide (NO) synthesis. This is be- EMFs can interact with biologically plausible structures to produce non- cause two of the three types of enzymes producing NO are calcium- thermal effects. dependent. There is an NO signaling pathway that goes through in- The first of these Belyaev considers is Fröhlich's theory. This is creased cGMP and increased protein kinase G activity. Protein kinase G where there are “coherent longitudinal vibrations of electrically polar can act by raising the activity of the transcriptional regulatory factor, structures.” The mechanism of Fröhlich's theory will not be considered Nrf2, to produce the therapeutic effects produced by EMF exposures here (the reader is referred to Belyaev, 2015). The author considers this (Pilla, 2013; Pall, 2014; Pall and Levine, 2015). to be a plausible mechanism for possible production of some non- High levels of NO can bind to heme groups on cytochromes (up- thermal EMF effects. However, there are no specific testable predictions permost section, Fig. 1) inhibiting cytochrome oxidase, the terminal made by the theory that suggest how it could be tested, given the fact oxidase in the mitochondria, inhibiting ATP synthesis. NO can also that there may be multiple possible targets of the EMFs according to

Fig. 1. Various pathways of action by which EMF VGCC activation can produce effects produced by EMF exposure (modified, with permission from Pall, 2015b).

409 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Table 3 How Eight Established Effects of Wi-Fi and Other EMFs Can Be Produced by VGCC Activation.

EMF effect Probable mechanism(s)

Oxidative stress Produced by elevated levels of peroxynitrite and the free radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite and its C02 adduct. Four studies of EMF exposure, cited in Pall (2013) showed that oxidative stress following exposure was associated with major elevation of 3-nitrotyrosine, a marker of peroxynitrite, thus confirming this interpretation. Two other studies each found 3-nitrotyrosine elevation, both following 35 GHz exposures (Sypniewska et al. (2010); Kalns et al., 2000). Lowered male/female fertility, elevated spontaneous Both the lowered male fertility and lowered female fertility are associated with and presumably caused by the abortion, lowered libido oxidative stress in the male and female reproductive organs. Spontaneous abortion is often caused by chromosomal mutations, so the germ line mutations may have a causal role. Lowered libido may be caused by lowered estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels. It seems likely that these explanations may be greatly oversimplified. One mechanism that may be important in lowered fertility is that VGCC activation and consequent high {Ca2+]i levels is known to have a key role in avoiding polyspermy. Consquently, if this if triggered before any fertilization of an egg has occurred, it may prevent any sperm from fertilizing and egg. Neurological/ neuropsychiatric effects Of all cells in the body, the neurons have the highest densities of VGCCs, due in part to the VGCC role and [Ca2+] i role in the release of every neurotransmitter in the nervous system. Calcium signaling regulates synaptic structure and function in 5 different ways, each likely to be involved here. Oxidative stress and apoptosis are both thought to have important roles. Lowered sleep and increased fatigue are likely to involve lowered nocturnal melatonin and increased nocturnal norepinephrine. Apoptosis Apoptosis can be produced by excessive Ca2+ levels in the mitochondria and by double strand breaks in cellular DNA; it seems likely that both are involved following EMF exposure. A third mechanism for triggering apopotosis, endoplasmic reticulum stress (see bottom row in this Table), may also be involved. Cellular DNA damage Cellular DNA damage is produced by the free radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite directly attacking the DNA [see Pall (2018) for discussion]. Changes in non-steroid hormone levels The release of non-steroid hormones is produced by VGCC activation and [Ca2+]i elevation. The immediate effects of EMF exposures is to increase hormone release and to raise, therefore, hormone levels. However many hormone systems become “exhausted” as a consequence of chronic EMF exposures. The mechanism of exhaustion is still uncertain, but it may involve oxidative stress and inflammation. Lowered steroid hormone Steroid hormones are synthesized through the action of cytochrome P450 enzymes; activity of these hormones is inhibited by binding of high levels of nitric oxide (NO) leading to lowered hormone synthesis. Calcium overload Produced by excessive activity of the VGCCs; secondary calcium overload is produced by oxidative stress activation of TRPV1, TRPM2 and possibly some other TRP receptors, opening the calcium channel of these receptors. Heat shock protein induction There is a large literature showing that excessive [Ca2+]i induces very large increases in heat shock proteins. This is thought to be produced by complex calcium signaling changes involving the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria and the cytosol and also involving excessive [Ca2+]i producing increasing protein misfolding (Garbuz, 2017; Park et al., 2014; Krebs et al., 2011). It should be noted that some calcium is essential for proper protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum such that only excessive calcium leads to misfolding and consequent endoplasmic reticulum stress.

Fröhlich's theory. substantial similarity to what is thought to occur in the activation of the A second possible mechanism involves the spin state of radical pairs. voltage sensor, that is discussed above. There we have four alpha he- When radical pairs are generated from the breakdown of a non-radical lixes, each designated an S4 helix and with each S4 helix having 5 molecule, these radical pairs often react back with each other to form positive charges, with the 4 S4 helixes together making up the voltage another non-radical molecule, not necessarily identical to the original sensor. Most of those positive charges are 3 amino acid residues apart non-radical. What is postulated by this theory is that EMFs can interact from each other, such that the closest charged residues stick out from with one or both radicals, changing their spin state and greatly lowering the helix pretty much on the same side of the helix. Three of those their ability to react back with each other, thus generating increased positive charges are electrostatically attracted to negative residues on free radicals and therefore increased oxidative stress. The potential other helixes thought to be in fixed positions. What is thought to strong point of this theory is that it provides an explanation for the happen in activation is that there a ratcheting of the S4 helixes toward oxidative stress found following EMF exposure. However, as noted the extracellular space, ratcheting such that the negative charges are under oxidative stress in Table 3, there are 6 studies where oxidative now bound to a positive charge 3 residues away from the one that was stress following EMF exposure was associated with very high levels of previously bound. The ratcheting also produces some turning of the S4 3-nitrotyrosine, a specific marker of peroxynitrite elevation. These helix. This needs to occur several times on each of the four S4 helixes to studies argue, therefore, that oxidative stress following EMF exposure is open the channel and allow calcium ions to flow. While I don’t com- produced by peroxynitrite elevation and is not primarily produced by pletely understand the Brizhik electrosoliton model, it may well be this radical pair mechanism. It follows from this that the proposed ra- relevant to our understanding the VGCC activation, because the me- dical pair mechanism cannot even explain the properties of oxidative chanism of the voltage sensor is similar to what Brizhik and her col- stress production, let alone the various consequences of non-thermal leagues propose to occur in the electrosoliton model. Both the elec- EMF exposure that do not involve oxidative stress. Does that mean that trosoliton model and the voltage sensor activation mechanism involve the radical pair mechanism has no possible role in producing non- both charge movements and ratcheting. In order to test these biophy- thermal EMF effects? No, but it does argue there is no evidence for any sical models one needs to have a specific mechanism where it may such role. apply and where such tests can be done. In the case of the voltage A third mechanism discussed in Belyaev (2015) is the electrosoliton sensor of the VGCCs, these tests have already been done. theory proposed by Brizhik and colleagues, involving a “self reinforcing These models are basically theoretical models of how the weak solitary wave packet.” Brizhik and her colleagues discussed this in the electrical forces of the EMFs can interact with biologically plausible context of reaching a threshold minimum energy state where both structures to produce non-thermal effects. Their theoretical support is charged molecules and the EMF is in a coherent state, such that charge their strong point. They are weak, however, in providing any compel- movement can ratchet from one state to another. This concept shows ling evidence that they have causal roles in producing non-thermal

410 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416 changes in cells in culture or in whole animal (or human) studies. They which produces the calcium cyclotron resonance and in three studies, are also weak because they do not provide stated explanations for the these frequencies were shown to produce increases in [Ca2+]i levels. range of EMF effects that have been documented. In the De Carlo et al. (2012) study, the calcium channel blocker nife- Belyaev (2015) discusses microwave hearing in this context. He dipine was shown to greatly lower the apparent calcium cyclotron re- discusses the findings showing that people can hear microwave fields sonance effect. This finding strongly suggests that the calcium cyclotron that are pulsed, including pulsed low intensity EMFs. While there is no resonance can feed Ca2+ ions into the VGCCs, thus increasing the flow doubt that these are very interesting observations on what are clearly of Ca2+ ions through the VGCCs into the cell following EMF exposure. non-thermal effects, they do not provide a biophysical model explaining The frequencies studied here for cyclotron resonance, one was close to how microwave hearing may occur. It is important, therefore to ask 7 Hz and the other was close to 50 Hz, are both in the extremely low whether such microwave hearing could be caused by VGCC activation. frequency range and consequently are not relevant to microwave fre- It has been shown that hearing involves the activation of the VGCCs quency effects. The finding that only very specific calcium cyclotron (Joiner and Lee, 2015). Furthermore, various otolaryngological condi- resonance frequencies produce these effects is the main evidence for tions, including tinnitus, involve excessive VGCC activity, such that the this mechanism. calcium channel blocker, nimodipine is useful in their treatment It is now well established that there is a magnetoreception me- (Monzani et al., 2015). These findings tells us that microwave hearing chanism found in many animals that can detect and respond to the very may be produced by VGCC activation. Consequently, microwave low intensity geomagnetic field. This has been most studied in bees and hearing may be interpreted as providing further support for the VGCC in birds, both of whom use it for navigation. This has been suggested to mechanism. involve tiny particles of magnetite which occur in bacterial, animal and Following microwave hearing, Dr. Belyaev (2015) discusses plasma plant cells, including human cells. Kirschvink (1992) first proposed a membrane and ion models. Here the VGCC mechanisms fit into the model of how such a mechanism might act. He proposed that magnetite scheme, as do the other voltage-gated ion channels and the plant TPC particles may be tethered through a microtubule and/or microfilament channels, all discussed above as being activated by their voltage sensor or perhaps other fibers to a mechanosensitive channel, such that tiny following EMF exposures. magnetic forces could open the mechanosensitive channels, allowing Finally, Dr. Belyaev (2015) discusses possible direct effects of EMFs cation flow into the cells. It is still uncertain what mechanosensitive on DNA, possibly leading to changes in chromatin structure and/or channel or channels might be involved, but most of the candidates are nuclear structure. There is a literature showing that aqueous solutions channels that allow both sodium and calcium to flow into cells. Hsu of DNA absorb microwave EMFs much more efficiently than do iden- et al. (2007) suggested that such magnetite particles were linked in tical solutions not containing DNA. This clearly shows that DNA has a honeybees to an undefined calcium channel, such that magnetic field high absorbance of the EMFs, Furthermore, there are studies showing exposure produces increases in [Ca2+]i. The worm Caenorhabditis such dissolved DNA, when it absorbs such EMFs, undergoes structural elegans had been shown to have a geomagnetic orientation system. changes as measured by biophysical techniques. All of this suggests that Vidal-Gadea et al. (2015) found that certain specific neurons in C. DNA is a plausible potential target for the EMFs. The problem is what elegans which may be geomagnetic sensory neurons, very low intensity are the predicted effects of such changes in DNA structure in living cells geomagnetic fields could produce increases in [Ca2+]i in those specific and organisms? Dr. Belyaev spends almost a page and a half in his paper neurons, even when they had no synaptic inputs, suggesting that these discussing various possible models of interactions of DNA or of chro- neurons themselves acted as geomagnetic sensors. matin with EMFs. But again, how do we test any of these in living cells Cadiou and McNaughton (2010) reviewed the literature on a mag- to demonstrate a role of such DNA or chromatin changes in producing netite-based magnetoreception system in birds and its role in avian any specific or general biological effects? Given the extraordinary migration. They also reviewed findings on neurons found in the tri- complexity of living cells and organisms, there are only two powerful geminal nerve of birds, where magnetic fields as low as 200 nT can ways of demonstrating causal roles in such living cells and organisms. activate specific neurons. Trains of action potentials are produced by These are to use genetics or to use specific pharmacological agents. The magnetic fields, plateauing in the region of 20–100 mT. Latency in a extraordinary power of each of these approaches comes from the fact study presented by Cadiou and McNaughton (2010) was about 4 s, but that these approaches allow researchers to vary one variable at a time other studies have reported latencies of about 2.5 s. Therefore these are out of the thousands of interacting variables in a living cell, allowing us rapid effects. Cadiou and McNaughton (2010) also discuss possible roles to ask does that specific variable have a causal role in determining a mechanosensitive channels, including a model similar to that proposed specific response. But these two approaches can be used when specific by Kirschvink (1992) and also three other models, each involving dif- proteins have specific roles, not when you are looking at the role of ferent ways of coupling forces on magnetite to opening of a channel. DNA structural changes, Fröhlich's theory, radical pair mechanisms or Magnetoreception has also been reported to occur in a mammal, the electrosoliton models. Fortunately the VGCC mechanism does allow this mole-rat (Wegner et al., 2006). There are also studies of magnetic approach by studying various classes of calcium channel blockers, so compass orientation in salmonids, newts, sea turtles and other rodents. here we do have hard data on widespread causal roles of VGCC acti- There is evidence in Drosophila, that a magnetic structure attached to vation in producing EMF effects. cryptochrome is involved in magnetoreception, as opposed to magne- tite. 8. Two other models for producing non-thermal effects The two mechanisms described in this section have minor roles, only acting, as far as we can tell, in very specific situations. The calcium With the possible exception of the electrosoliton model, the author cyclotron resonance mechanism only acts with a few specific fre- does not find any of the models discussed by Dr. Belyaev (2015) to have quencies in the extremely low frequency range. The magnetoreception substantial evidence for roles in producing EMF effects. There are two mechanism only acts, as far as one can tell, on detecting the weak other models which may be more compelling, each of which either geomagnetic fields and only acts, as far as one can tell, in certain spe- produces increased [Ca2+]i. cific neurons. It is possible that this view may change with regard to the Six studies have supported the view that calcium cyclotron re- magnetoreception mechanism but what is clear is that the VGCC me- sonance, has a role in producing biological effects produced by certain chanism is vastly more important than either of these mechanisms, specific frequencies which can interact with Ca2+ ions to produce a cy- acting in diverse cell types and acting to provide responses to a very clotron-like resonance (Foletti et al., 2010; Gaetani et al., 2009; De wide frequency range and even to static electrical fields and static Carlo et al., 2012; Lisi et al., 2008; Pazur and Rassadina, 2009; Pazur magnetic fields. Because static magnetic fields only place forces on et al., 2006). In each case, the effects involved a very specific frequency moving electric charges, this produced a puzzle on how they can

411 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416 activate the VGCCs. Pall (2013) suggested that the solution to that exposure systems. Because of the many reverberations occurring, the puzzle is that the plasma membrane of animal cells is often moving, path lengths of different photons reaching a specific point in the ex- such that the charges in the voltage sensor are also moving and can, posed tissue, will often be quite different from each other, such that the therefore, have forces placed on them by the static magnetic fields. phase of the EMFs produced will also be quite different from each other. These static magnetic fields, activating the VGCCs can be relative low This leads to the possibility of destructive interference and thus a intensity but probably must be much higher intensity than the extra- second mechanism which is predicted to lead to substantial decreases in ordinarily weak geomagnetic fields. The reader is referred to Lu et al. the intensity of the exposures. Because exposures are usually predicted (2015) for empirical information from an important static magnetic by groups using such exposure chambers without considering such field study, where those static magnetic fields activate both VGCCs and destructive interference, rather than being measured, the actual ex- voltage-gated sodium channels. posures may be substantially lower than are the predicted exposures. Both the polarization effect and the possible difference between pre- 9. Foster and Moulder on Wi-Fi dicted exposure and actual exposure were considered in an earlier study. The Foster and Moulder (2013) paper argues that there are no and Vian et al. (2006), using a different reverberation exposure cannot be any health effects of Wi- Fi. The first 7½ pages of the paper chamber, discussed in Fig. 1 of that paper, how the various re- are, however, largely irrelevant to that issue. These pages discuss such verberations lead to the initial polarized EMF being converted to a non- issues as predicted peak power output, incident power density and the polarized or at least, less polarized EMF. They also on p. 69 if that paper FCC and international safety guidelines. They also discuss specific ab- compared the predicted with the measured amplitude and found that sorption rate (SAR) values, a measure of heating. Because it is now the measured amplitude was only 78% of the predicted amplitude. established, as discussed above that thermal effects are not the relevant These findings suggest that both of the lowered polarization and de- mechanism of non-thermal effects and that VGCC activation is the main structive interference discussed in the previous two paragraphs can mechanism of such effects, this whole section is irrelevant. Foster and have substantial roles in lowering biological responses produced when Moulder (2013) discuss the issue of biological effects, praising 7 studies using such reverberation exposure chambers. listed in table 4 of their paper as having “well-characterized exposure Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of systems” of well defined SARS values, reporting that there were no Ardoino et al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is pro- effects in the rats or mice in those 7 studies. Those 7 studies are Laudisi duced from reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, et al. (2012), Sambucci et al. (2010), Aït-Aïssa et al. (2010, 2012, 2013) where the curvature of the cylinder will also produce a largely non- and Poulletier de Gannes et al. (2012, 2013). The first two studies come polarized EMF and different reverberation paths and consequent de- from one research group and the other five from another, albeit with structive interference, may both be expected to occur. Consequently the some shared personnel. predicted low biological activity of EMFs produced by the Wu et al. Six or those seven studies (Sambucci et al., 2010; Aït-Aïssa et al., (2009) system may be expected to also occur from this TEM exposure 2010, 2012, 2013; Poulletier de Gannes et al., 2012, 2013) used an system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study biological effects exposure system described by Wu et al. (2009) that is important here of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important exposures using and that was claimed to produce a near uniform exposure. Laudisi et al. such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they pro- (2012) used a somewhat similar exposure system of Ardoino et al. duce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive in- (2005), albeit another one that is also claimed to produce near uniform terference. exposures. The important features here of the Wu et al. (2009) exposure Let's now shift to the issue of the important role of pulsations in system need to be examined in the light of the fact that, as discussed producing biological effects and ask whether the EMFs fed into the above, artificial EMFs are polarized with the polarization producing antennae have pulsation patterns similar or different from genuine Wi- much larger biological effects than natural non-polarized EMFs Fi. Poulletier de Gannes et al. (2012) used a non-pulsed (continuous (Belyaev, 2005, 2015; Panagopoulos et al., 2015a). The probable im- wave) as did Wu et al. (2009), an EMF which will have, therefore, much portant feature of these polarized EMFs is that they put much larger lower biological effects that genuine Wi-Fi with its myriad of pulsations forces on electrically charged groups (Panagopoulos et al., 2015a); (Maret, 2015). The other 6 studies (Laudisi et al., 2012; Sambucci et al., since such forces are central to VGCC activation via the voltage sensor, 2010; Aït-Aïssa et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Poulletier de Gannes et al., as discussed above, they are likely to be central to the production of 2013) used computers with Wi-Fi cards. Such Wi-Fi cards are designed most biological effects. Let's examine Wu et al. (2009) with that issue in to communicate with genuine Wi-Fi antennae, but are used here to mind. It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh communicate with each other, using two such computers to generate wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which “Wi-Fi”. How the EMFs so generated compare with the pulsations of animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by genuine Wi-Fi is a complete mystery and none of these papers provide antennae in all 6 directions (up, down, all four horizontal directions) any information to allow the reader to make such a comparison. It such that each antenna is broadcasting with one polarization is opposed follows that these studies (Laudisi et al., 2012; Sambucci et al., 2010; (at 180°) by another broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, Aït-Aïssa et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Poulletier de Gannes et al., 2013) are as well as by four other antennae, broadcasting with 90° different po- not studying genuine Wi-Fi, even before the effects of the reverberation larization in each of the four possible directions. This produces a field chamber and the reader is left with no evidence to compare these ori- that is more like a non-polarized EMF rather than the usual polarized ginal EMFs with genuine Wi-Fi. In summary, then none of the EMFs artificial EMF. This move toward non-polarization is further ex- used in these studies are genuine Wi-Fi, with them differing from acerbated by the aluminum wire reverberation system whose reflec- genuine Wi-Fi in three different ways: the antenna locations produce a tions will generate vast numbers of reflections of different polarity, like substantial difference from genuine Wi-Fi regarding EMF polarization a non-polarized EMF. The consequences of this is that the structure of and this is further exacerbated by the effects of the aluminum mesh this exposure system is clearly very different from that seen in Wi-Fi or reverberation producing further lowering of any polarization; differ- any other artificially produced EMF that we may be exposed to, with ences in path lengths of different photons produce substantial de- biological effects produced via electrical forces being vastly less. Con- structive interference; the initial EMF fed into the antennae differs sequently this exposure system is not only inherently different from substantially from genuine Wi-Fi, with the main concern here being due genuine Wi-Fi, it is predicted to be inherently less active than genuine to the issue of pulsation patterns and biological effects. Wi-Fi, regardless of what EMFs are being fed into the 6 antennae. Let's shift now to the claim made by Foster and Moulder (2013) that There is a second type of consequence of using such reverberation there were no effects found in any of these 7 studies. Rothman et al.,

412 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition is a highly respected source of in- comparing the sham values with the values at 4 (P < .02). It follows formation, cited over 18,500 times according to the Google Scholar from this, that three of the comparisons show statistically significant database. It states (p. 151, bottom) that: “A common misinterpretation changes, and the fourth falls just short of statistical significance. Does of significance tests is that there no difference between two observed this mean that that we should conclude that Wi-Fi can cause gliosis and groups because the null test is not statistically significant, in that P is thus possibly gliomas? No, but only because they did not study Wi-Fi. It greater that the cutoff for declaring statistical significance (again, should be noted, however that the long-term effects on the brain from usually .05). This interpretation confuses a descriptive issue (whether pre-natal exposures may be relevant to autism causation. two observed groups differ) with an inference about the super- 4). Poulletier de Gannes et al. (2012) also suffered from tiny num- population. The significance test refers only to the superpopulation, not bers in their study, with 12 to 15 rats studied in each group in Fig. 1, the observed groups. To say that the difference is not statistically sig- only 5 females in each group in Table 1, 12 to 15 rats in each group in nificant means only that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the both Table 2 and Table 3. 5). Aït-Aïssa et al. (2012) also suffers from superpopulation groups are the same; it does not imply that the two tiny numbers of rats in the various studies. It used from 9 to 12 preg- groups are the same.” It follows that the claim of “no effect” that Foster nant female rats in each group to attempt to assess EMFs impact of and Moulder (2013) make about each of these 7 studies in Table 4 of reproduction; it used 9 to 12 juvenile rats to determine if EMFs act to their paper is false because one can never legitimately make such a change antibody production; it used 9 to 12 young rats to determine claim; one can at most claim that there were no statistically significant whether EMFs impact growth over time. These tiny numbers mean that differences. failure to find statistical significant changes has very low power to However there are other reasons to reject those claims that need to support any inferences. 6). Aït-Aïssa et al. (2013) had similar problems be considered for each of these 7 studies. Each of these 7 studies fails to with tiny numbers, 6 to 12 in Fig. 5, 5 to 11 in Fig. 8 and 6 to 12 in provide raw numerical data, the lack of which is problematic, given the Fig. 9. 7). Poulletier de Gannes et al. (2013) also suffers from tiny other flaws that follow. 1). Laudisi et al. (2012) finds in Table 2, that numbers. Fig. 1 groups each had 12 males or females and there were two T cell populations are statistically significantly different in pre- also groups of 12 studied in Table 1, Fig. 2 and Table 2. Regarding, the natally exposed mice vs sham controls: DP and CD4SP cells are sig- authors give no information regarding statistical significance or lack nificantly affected by exposure in mice at 26 weeks after birth; CD4SP thereof; rather they only state that the values of these groups were cells are affected in female mice at 5 weeks after birth (P < .02 in each “similar”, without providing a definition of “similar”. However in case). Furthermore in each of the measurements in Laudisi et al. (2012), comparing the values of testis weight and epididymis weight at 4 W/Kg only 11 or 12 mice were studied, tiny numbers. It follows that claims in exposure vs sham control, they provided values for the mean and Foster and Moulder (2013) that there were no effects are false or mis- standard error of the mean (SEM). It is usually the case that when the leading for 3 distinct reasons: You can never make such claims even in mean values differ by more than 2.4 times the SEM, the difference is large studies; there were 3 comparisons each of which showed statis- statistically significant. Here the testis weight, comparing sham with tically significant effects; this study was done with tiny numbers of 4 W/Kg, values differed by 3.18 times the SEM and the epididymis animals being compared and thus had extremely low statistical power. weight differed by 3.40 times the SEM, each arguing strongly for sta- 2). Sambucci et al. (2010) also had a tiny numbers, with 11 or 12 per tistical significance. This raises the question of why the authors failed to group studied in Table 2, from 6 to 35 studied in Table 3 and 6 to provide their P values? 12 studied in Table 4. The claims of no statistically significant effects in An additional flaw of these 7 supposed Wi-Fi studies is that they Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are based on the tiny numbers in Table 3, are each studied exposures of 2 h per day, 5 days per week except for one therefore, based on studies with very low statistical power. 3). The first that only studied one hour per week, 5 days per day. Given that many part of the Aït-Aïssa et al. (2010) paper focused on GFAP values, a people are exposed to Wi-Fi fields for 5, 6, 8 or more hours per day, this measure of gliosis, which is a risk factor for glioma formation. The is another factor which argues that these studies may have been set up groups studied in Fig. 4 of Aït-Aïssa et al. (2010) range from 3 to 10, so to minimize any effects seen. again we have tiny numbers and the authors report that none of the To sum up the other flaws: exposures, SAR= .08, = .4. or = 4 W/Kg produced statistically sig- nificant changes according to their statistical calculations. As in the 1. The 6 antennae of the reverberation chamber used in 6 out of 7 other studies, no raw data are provided but Fig. 4 provides bar graph studies, minimized probable effects produced through the arrange- information which includes median values for each of the 10 different ment of the antennae in such a way as to greatly lower the polar- regions of the brain in these rats, control rats and also rats exposed ization of the EMFs. either pre-natally or both pre-natally and post-natally. For 5 of those 2. The use of 1 mm aluminum wires to produce the reverberation re- brain regions, M4, CA1, CA2, CA3 and DG, the median values are high flections, further decreases such polarization, again lowering prob- enough that one can see which are higher and which are lower from the able effects. These structures are clearly very different from those graph. It appears to this author that the median values go up from the found in genuine Wi-Fi, emphasizing the point that these are not sham exposures to the lowest intensity (= .08), that they drop going to genuine Wi-Fi studies, because of 1 and 2 here. the next intensity (= .4) and that they go up going to the highest in- 3. Differences in path lengths for different photons, produced by re- tensity studies (= 4). You may recall (see above) that there are certain verberation produce substantial destructive interference. windows of exposure that give the highest biological response but with 4. Furthermore the EMFs fed into the antennae are not genuine Wi-Fi both lower and higher intensities giving lower responses. It follows that either. It follows from this that claims that these are studies of the complex apparent dose-response curve of Aït-Aïssa et al. (2010), genuine Wi-Fi made by both the authors of these individual studies can be explained by these window effects. The question is whether any and by Foster and Moulder (2013) are false. such apparent changes are statistically significant? I did, therefore a 5. The claims made by Foster and Moulder (2013) that there are no Chi-square analysis of these data, to determine statistical significance, effects produced are also false; the most that may be legitimately using both the only prenatal and both prenatal and postnatal exposures concluded is that there is no statistically significant evidence of ef- (see Fig. 4 in Aït-Aïssa et al., 2010). Those data show that in 10 out of fects. 10 cases, the median value increased going from sham to .08 6. Each of the 7 studies used only tiny numbers of animals in each (P < .002.). Similarly, in 10 out of 10 cases, the median value drops group studied, such that lack of statistical significance, because of going from .08 to .4 (P < .002). However in 8 out of 10 cases, the the low power of these studies, drastically limits the drawing of median value increases going from .4 to 4 (P < .07), falling just short inferences. of statistical significance. The median values increased with exposure, 7. Finally, 3 out of 7 had evidence of statistically significant effects,

413 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

with each of these being ignored by Foster and Moulder. Rev. Environ. Health 28, 159–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2013-0016. Çiftçi, Z.Z., Kırzıoğlu, Z., Nazıroğlu, M., Özmen, Ö., 2015. Effects of prenatal and post- natal exposure of Wi-Fi on development of teeth and changes in teeth element con- Funding centration in rats. [corrected]. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 163, 193–201. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s12011-014-0175-5. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding Çiğ, B., Nazıroğlu, M., 2015. Investigation of the effects of distance from sources on fi apoptosis, oxidative stress and cytosolic calcium accumulation via TRPV1 channels agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-pro t sectors. induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1848 (10 Pt B), 2756–2765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.02.013. References Consales, C., Merla, C., Marino, C., Benassi, B., 2012. Electromagnetic fields, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration. Int. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 683897. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1155/2012/683897. Adams, J.A., Galloway, T.S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S.C., 2014. Effect of mobile telephones Creighton, M.O., Larsen, L.E., Stewart-DeHaan, P.J., Jacobi, J.H., Sanwal, M., Baskerville, on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 70, 106–112. J.C., Bassen, H.E., Brown, D.O., Trevithick, J.R., 1987. In vitro studies of microwave- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015. induced cataract. II. Comparison of damage observed for continuous wave and pulsed Adey, W.R., 1981. Tissue interactions with nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Physiol. microwaves. Exp. Eye Res. 45, 357–373. Rev. 61, 435–514. Czyz, J., Guan, K., Zeng, Q., Nikolova, T., Meister, A., Schönborn, F., Schuderer, J., Adey, W.R., 1988. Cell membranes: the electromagnetic environment and cancer pro- Kuster, N., Wobus, A.M., 2004. High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) motion. Neurochem. Res. 13, 671–677. affect gene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells. Aït-Aïssa, S., Billaudel, B., Poulletier De Gannes, F., Hurtier, A., Haro, E., Taxile, M., Bioelectromagnetics 25, 296–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.10199. Ruffie, G., Athane, A., Veyret, B., Lagroye, I., 2010. In situ detection of gliosis and Dasdag, S., Tas, M., Akdag, M.Z., Yegin, K., 2015. Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz apoptosis in the brains of young rats exposed in utero to a Wi-Fi signal. C. R. Phys. 11, radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. 592–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2010.10.005. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34, 37–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2013. Aït-Aïssa, S., Billaudel, B., Poulletier de Gannes, F., Ruffié, G., Duleu, S., Hurtier, A., Haro, 869752. E., Taxile, M., Athané, A., Geffard, M., Wu, T., Wiart, J., Bodet, D., Veyret, B., Dasdag, S., Akdag, M.Z., 2016. The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless Lagroye, I., 2012. In utero and early-life exposure of rats to a Wi-Fi signal: screening technologies and oxidative stress. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 75 (Pt B), 85–93. http://dx. of immune markers in sera and gestational outcome. Bioelectromagnetics 33, doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.09.001. 410–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.21699. De Carlo, F., Ledda, M., Pozzi, D., Pierimarchi, P., Zonfrillo, M., Giuliani, L., D'Emilia, E., Aït-Aïssa, S., de Gannes, F.P., Taxile, M., Billaudel, B., Hurtier, A., Haro, E., Ruffié, G., Foletti, A., Scorretti, R., Grimaldi, S., Lisi, A., 2012. Nonionizing radiation as a Athané, A., Veyret, B., Lagroye, I., 2013. In situ expression of heat-shock proteins and noninvasive strategy in regenerative medicine: the effect of Ca(2+)-ICR on mouse 3-nitrotyrosine in brains of young rats exposed to a WiFi signal in utero and in early skeletal muscle cell growth and differentiation. Tissue Eng. Part A 18 (21–22), life. Radiat. Res. 179, 707–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR2995.1. 2248–2258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2012.0113. Epub 2012 Jul 23. Aitken, R.J., De Iuliis, G.N., 2007. Origins and consequences of DNA damage in male Desai, N.R., Kesari, K.K., Agarwal, A., 2009. Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: germ cells. Reprod. Biomed. Online 14, 727–733. oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system. Akdag, M.Z., Dasdag, S., Canturk, F., Karabulut, D., Caner, Y., Adalier, N., 2016. Does Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 7, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-7-114. prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage Foletti, A., Ledda, M., De Carlo, F., Grimaldi, S., Lisi, A., 2010. Calcium ion cyclotron in various tissues of rats? J. Chem. Neuroanat. 75 (Pt B), 116–122. http://dx.doi.org/ resonance (ICR), 7.0 Hz, 9.2 microT magnetic field exposure initiates differentiation 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.01.003. of pituitary corticotrope-derived AtT20 D16V cells. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29 (3), Ardoino, L., Lopresto, V., Mancini, S., Marino, C., Pinto, R., Lovisolo, G.A., 2005. A radio- 63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2010.482480. frequency system for in vivo pilot experiments aimed at the studies on biological Foster, K.R., Moulder, J.E., 2013. Wi-Fi and health: review of current status of research. effects of electromagnetic fields. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 3643–3654. Health Phys. 105, 561–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e31829b49bb. Asghari, A., Khaki, A.A., Rajabzadeh, A., Khaki, A., 2016. A review on electromagnetic Gaetani, R., Ledda, M., Barile, L., Chimenti, I., De Carlo, F., Forte, E., Ionta, V., Giuliani, fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system. Electron. Physician 8, 2655–2662. http:// L., D'Emilia, E., Frati, G., Miraldi, F., Pozzi, D., Messina, E., Grimaldi, S., Giacomello, dx.doi.org/10.19082/2655. A., Lisi, A., 2009. Differentiation of human adult cardiac stem cells exposed to ex- Atasoy, H., Gunal, M.Y., Atasoy, P., Elgund, S., Bugdayci, G., 2013. Immunopathologic tremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Cardiovasc. Res. 82 (3), 411–420. demonstration of deleterious effects on gro.wing rat testes of radiofrequency waves http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvp067. Epub 2009 Feb 19. emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. J. Pediatr. Urol. 9, 223–229. http://dx.doi. Gandhi, O.P., Kang, G., 2001. Calculation of induced current densities for humans by org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.02.015. magnetic fields from electronic article surveillance devices. Phys. Med. Biol. 46, Avendaño, C., Mata, A., Sanchez Sarmiento, C.A., Doncel, G.F., 2012. Use of laptop 2759–2771. computers connected to the internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility Gandhi, O.P., Morgan, L.L., de Salles, A.A., Han, Y.Y., Herberman, R.B., Davis, D.L., 2012. and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil. Steril. 97, 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/ Exposure Limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.012. children. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 31, 34–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378. Aynali, G., Nazıroğlu, M., Çelik, Ö., Doğan, M., Yarıktaş, M., Yasan, H., 2013. Modulation 2011.622827. of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by Garbuz, D.G., 2017. Regulation of heat shock gene expression in response to stress. Mol. melatonin. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 270, 1695–1700. http://dx.doi.org/10. Biol. 51, 352–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0026893317020108. 1007/s00405-013-2425-0. Ghazizadeh, V., Nazıroğlu, M., 2014. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy in- Batista Napotnik, T., Reberšek, M., Vernier, P.T., Mali, B., Miklavčič, D., 2010. Effects of duce calcium entry and apoptosis through activation of TRPV1 channel in hippo- high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells (in vitro): a systematic campus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab. Brain Dis. 29, 787–799. http://dx. review. Bioelectrochemistry 110, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem. doi.org/10.1007/s11011-014-9549-9. 2016.02.011. Glaser, Z.R., PhD., 1971. Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971. Belyaev, I., 2005. Non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. Microw. Rev. 11, 13–29. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Belyaev, I., 2015. Biophysical mechanisms for nonthermal microwave effects. In: Markov, Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report No. M.S. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine. CRC Press, New York, pp. 2 Revised. 〈https://scholar.google.com/scholar?Q=Glaser+naval+medical 49–67. +microwave+radio-frequency+1972&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38〉 (accessed Belyaev, I.Y., Markovà, E., Hillert, L., Malmgren, L.O., Persson, B.R., 2009. Microwaves 9 September 2017). from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma- Grigor'ev, Iu.G., 1996. Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic ra- H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics 30, 129–141. diation. Radiat. Biol. Radioecol. 36, 659–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20445. Gye, M.C., Park, C.J., 2012. Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., Kundi, M., system. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 39, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2012.39. Moshammer, H., Lercher, P., Müller, K., Oberfeld, G., Ohnsorge, P., Pelzmann, P., 1.1. Scheingraber, C., Thill, R., 2016. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the preven- Hardell, L., Sage, C., 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and tion, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev. public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 104–109. http://dx.doi.org/ Environ. Health. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. 10.1016/j.biopha.2007.12.004. Berezow, A., Bloom, A., 2017. Recommendation to limit Md. School Wi-Fi based on 'junk Hassanshahi, A., Shafeie, S.A., Fatemi, I., Hassanshahi, E., Allahtavakoli, M., Shabani, M., science'. Baltimore Sun op-ed piece, March 12. 〈http://www.baltimoresun.com/ Roohbakhsh, A., Shamsizadeh, A., 2017. The effect of Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves in news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-wifi-school-20170312-story.html〉 (accessed 10 October unimodal and multimodal object recognition tasks in male rats. Neurol. Sci. 38, 2017). 1069–1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2920-y. Bhargav, H., Srinivasan, T.M., Varambally, S., Gangadhar, B.N., Koka, P., 2015. Effect of Hazout, A., Menezo, Y., Madelenat, P., Yazbeck, C., Selva, J., Cohen-Bacrie, P., 2008. mobile phone-induced electromagnetic field on brain hemodynamics and human Causes and clinical implications of sperm DNA damages. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 36, stem cell functioning: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk and early diagnostic 1109–1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2008.07.017. value of electronphotonic imaging. J. Stem Cells 10, 287–294 (doi: Houston, B.J., Nixon, B., King, B.V., De Iuliis, G.N., Aitken, R.J., 2016. The effects of jsc.2015.10.4.287). radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction 152, Cadiou, H., McNaughton, P.A., 2010. Avian magnetite-based magnetoreption: a physio- R263–R276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/REP-16-0126. logist's perspective. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, S193–S205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ Hsu, C.Y., Ko, F.Y., Li, C.W., Fann, K., Lue, J.T., 2007. Magnetoreception system in rsif.2009.0423.focus. honeybees (Apis mellifera). PLoS One 2 (4), e395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ Carpenter, D.O., 2013. Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. journal.pone.0000395.

414 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Joiner, M.L., Lee, A., 2015. Voltage-gated Cav1 channels in disorders of vision and Postnatal development and behavior effects of in-utero exposure of rats to radio- hearing. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol. 8, 143–148. frequency waves emitted from conventional WiFi devices. Environ. Toxicol. Kalns, J., Ryan, K.L., Mason, P.A., Bruno, J.G., Gooden, R., Kiel, J.L., 2000. Oxidative Pharmacol. 52, 239–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2017.04.016. stress precedes circulatory failure induced by 35-GHz microwave heating. Shock 13, Othman, H., Ammari, M., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., 2017b. Effects of repeated restraint 52–59. stress and WiFi signal exposure on behavior and oxidative stress in rats. Metab. Brain Kaplan, S., Deniz, O.G., Önger, M.E., Türkmen, A.P., Yurt, K.K., Aydın, I., Altunkaynak, Dis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11011-017-0016-2. B.Z., Davis, D., 2016. Electromagnetic field and brain development. J. Chem. Özorak, A., Nazıroğlu, M., Çelik, Ö., Yükse, l.M., Özçelik, D., Özkaya, M.O., Çetin, H., Neuroanat. 75 (Pt B), 52–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.11.005. Kahya, M.C., Kose, S.A., 2013. Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 Khurana, V.G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., 2010. MHz)-induced risks on oxidative stress and elements in kidney and testis of rats Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. during pregnancy and the development of offspring. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 156, Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/ 221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12011-013-9836-z. 107735210799160192. Pall, M.L., 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium Kirschvink, J.L., 1992. Comment on “constraints on biological effects of weak extremely- channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 17, 958–965. low-frequency electromagnetifc fields.”. Phys. Rev. A 46, 2178–2183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.12088. Krebs, J., Groenendyk, J., Michalek, M., 2011. Ca2+-signaling, alternative splicing and Pall, M.L., 2014. Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium channels: role endoplasmic reticulum stress responses. Neurochem. Res. 36, 1198–1211. http://dx. in therapeutic effects. Electromagn. Biol. Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378. doi.org/10.1007/s11064-011-0431-4. 2014.906447. Lai, H., 1994. Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. In: Lin, Pall, M.L., 2015a. How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health ef- J.C. (Ed.), Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems Vol. 1. Plenum Press, fects of microwave radiation from electrical devices. Int. J. Innov. Res Eng. Manag New York, pp. 27–88. (IJIREM) 2 (5), 71–76. La Vignera, S., Condorelli, R.A., Vicari, E., D'Agata, R., Calogero, A.E., 2012. Effects of the Pall, M.L., 2015b. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J. Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to Androl. 33, 350–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.111.014373. induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for Laudisi, F., Sambucci, M., Nasta, F., Pinto, R., Lodato, R., Altavista, P., Lovisolo, G.A., microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ. Health 3, Marino, C., Pioli, C., 2012. Prenatal exposure to radiofrequencies: effects of WiFi 99–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0001. signals on thymocyte development and peripheral T cell compartment in an animal Pall, M.L., 2016a. Electromagnetic fields act similarly in plants as in animals: Probable model. Bioelectromagnetics 33, 652–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.21733. activation of calcium channels via their voltage sensor. Curr. Chem. Biol. 10, 74–82. Lee, S.S., Kim, H.R., Kim, M.S., Park, S.H., Kim, D.W., 2014. Influence of smart phone Wi- Pall, M.L., 2016b. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce wide- Fi signals on adipose-derived stem cells. J. Cranofac. Surg. 25, 1902–1907. http://dx. spread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 75 (Pt B), doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000939. 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. Levine, H., Jorgensen, N., Martino-Andrade, A., Mendiola, J., Weksler-Derri, D., Mindlis, Pall, M.L., 2018. How cancer can be caused by microwave frequency electromagnetic I., Pinotti, R., Swan, S.H., 2017. Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review field (EMF) exposures: EMF activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/ can cause cancer including tumor promotion, tissue invasion and metastasis via 15 dmx022. mechanisms. In: Markov, M.S. (Ed.), Mobile Communications and Public Health. CRC Levitt, B.B., Lai, H., 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation Press, Boca Raton, FL (in press). emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 18, Pall, M.L., Levine, S., 2015. Nrf2, a master regulator of detoxification and also anti- 369–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/A10-018. oxidant, anti- inflammatory and other cytoprotective mechanisms, is raised by health Lisi, A., Ledda, M., De Carlo, F., Foletti, A., Giuliani, L., D'Emilia, E., Grimaldi, S., 2008. promoting factors. Acta Physiol. Sin. 67, 1–18. Calcium ion cyclotron resonance (ICR) transfers information to living systems: effects Panagopoulos, D.J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G.L., 2015a. Polarization: a key difference on human epithelial cell differentiation. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 27 (3), 230–240. between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields, in regard to biological ac- http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15368370802269135. tivity. Sci. Rep. 5, 14914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14914. Liu, K., Li, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, J., Cao, J., Ao, L., Zhang, S., 2014. Association between Panagopoulos, D.J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G.L., 2015b. Real versus simulated mobile mobile phone use and semen quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. phone exposures in experimental studies (article ID 607053, 8 pages). BioMed. Res. Andrology 2, 491–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2014.00205.x. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/607053. Lu, X.W., Du, L., Kou, L., Song, N., Zhang, Y.J., Wu, M.K., Shen, J.F., 2015. Effects of Papageorgiou, C.C., Hountala, C.D., Maganioti, A.E., Kiprianou, M.A., Rabavilas, A.S.D., moderate static magnetic fields on the voltage-gated sodium and calcium channels Papademitriou, G.N., Capalis, C.N., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the P300 com- currents in trigeminal ganglion neurons. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34, 285–292. ponent or event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. J. Integr. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2014.906448. Neurosci. 10, 189–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219635211002695. Maganioti, A.E., Papageorgiou C.C., Hountala, C.D., Kiprianou, M.A., Rabavilas, A.D., Park, H.K., Lee, J.E., Lim, J.F., Kang, B.H., 2014. Mitochondrial Hsp90s suppress calcium- Papademitriou, G.N., Capalis, C.N., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender mediated stress signals propagating from the mitochondria to the ER in cancer cells related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of (Article Number: 148). Mol. Cancer 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-13- Electromagnetic Fields. 〈https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miltiades_ 148. Kyprianou3/publication/267816859_WIFI_ELECTROMAGNETIC_FIELDS_EXERT_ Pazur, A., Rassadina, V., 2009. Transient effect of weak electromagnetic fields on calcium GENDER_RELATED_ALTERATIONS_ON_EEG/links/550ab8670cf265693ced8e9c. ion concentration in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol. 9, 47. pdf〉 (accessed 7 September 2017). Pazur, A., Rassadina, V., Dandler, J., Zoller, J., 2006. Growth of etiolated barley plants in Magras, I.N., Xenos, T.D., 1997. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal develop- weak static and 50 Hz electromagnetic fields tuned to calcium ion cyclotron re- ment of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18, 455–461. sonance. Biomagn. Res. Technol. 4, 1. Makker, K., Varghese, A., Desai, N.R., Mouradi, R., Agarwal, A., 2009. Cell phones: Phillips, J.L., Singh, N.P., Lai, H., 2009. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. modern man's nemesis? Reprod. Biomed. Online 18, 148–157. Pathophysiology 16, 79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2008.11.005. Maret, K., 2015. Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks, June 22, 2015. 〈https:// Pilla, A.A., 2012. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling vimeo.com/132039697〉. in challenged biological systems. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 28 (426), Markov, M.S., 2007. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy: history, state of the art and 330–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.08.078. future. Environmentalist 27, 465–475. Pilla, A.A., 2013. Nonthermal electromagnetic fields: from first messenger to therapeutic Markovà, E., Malmgren, L.O., Belyaev, I.Y., 2010. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit applications. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 32, 123–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/ 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: 15368378.2013.776335. possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ. Health Perspect. 118, 394–399. Pollack, H., Healer, J., 1967. Review of Information on Hazards to Personnel from High- http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0900781. Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Institute for Defense Analyses; Research and Monzani, D., Genovese, E., Pini, L.A., Di Berardino, F., Alicandri Ciufelli, M., Galeazzi, Engineering Support Division. IDA/HQ 67-6211, Series B, May 1967. G.M., Presutti, L., 2015. Nimodipine in otolaryngology: from past evidence to clinical Poulletier de Gannes, F., Haro, E., Hurtier, A., Taxile, M., Athane, A., Ait-Aissa, S., perspectives. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 35, 135–145. Masuda, H., Percherncie, Y., Ruffié, G., Billaudel, B., Dufour, P., Veyret, B., Lagroye, Nazıroğlu, M., Yükselm, M., Kösem, S.A., Özkaya, M.O., 2013. Recent reports of Wi-Fi and I., 2012. Effect of in utero wi-fi exposure on the pre- and postnatal development of mobile phone-induced radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling rats. Birth Defects Res. B Dev. Reprod. Toxicol. 95, 130–136. http://dx.doi.org/10. pathways in females and males. J. Membr. Biol. 246, 869–875. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/bdrb.20346. 1007/s00232-013-9597-9. Poulletier de Gannes, F., Billaudel, B., Haro, E., Taxile, M., Le Montagner, L., Hurtier, A., No authors listed, 2017. Scientists warn plunging sperm counts could lead to human Ait-Aissa, S., Masuda, H., Percherancier, Y., Ruffié, G., Dufour, P., Veyret, B., extinction. Geobeat article. 〈https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/26/ Lagroye, I., 2013. Rat fertility and embryo fetal development: influence of exposure scientists-sound-the-alarm-about-declining-sperm-counts/23049397/0〉 (accessed 7 to the Wi-Fi signal. Reprod. Toxicol. 36, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox. September 2017). 2012.11.003. Odaci, E., Bas, O., Kaplan, S., 2008. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electro- Raines, J.K., 1981. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed magnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological Effects and Theories. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Greenbelt, study. Brain Res. 1238, 224–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013. Maryland (116 p). Oni, O.M., Amuda, D.B., Gilbert, C.E., 2011. Effects of radiofrequency radiation from WiFi Redmayne, M., Johansson, O., 2015. Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: different devices on human ejaculated sperm. Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci. 9 (Article 13). sensitivities in the light of age-relevant natural differences. Rev. Environ. Health 30, Osipov, Yu.A., 1965. Labor Hygiene and the Effect of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic 323–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0030. Fields on Workers. Leningrad Meditsina Publishing House (220 pp.). Ruediger, H.W., 2009. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Othman, H., Ammari, M., Rtibi, K., Bensaid, N., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., 2017a. Pathophysiology 16, 89–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2008.11.004.

415 M.L. Pall Environmental Research 164 (2018) 405–416

Saili, L., Hanini, A., Smirani, C., Azzouz, I., Azzouz, A., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., Vidal-Gadea, A., Ward, K., Beron, C., Ghorashian, N., Gokce, S., Russell, J., Truong, N., Bouslama, Z., 2015. Effects of acute WiFi signals (2.45 GHz) on heart variability and Parikh, A., Gadea, O., Ben-Yakar, A., Pierce-Shimomura, J., 2015. Magnetosensitive blood pressure in albino rabbits. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 40, 600–605. http:// neurons mediate geomagnetic orientation in Caenorhabditis elegan. Neuroscience 4, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2015.08.015. e07493. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07493. Sambucci, M., Laudisi, F., Nasta, F., Pinto, R., Lodato, R., Altavista, P., Lovisolo, G.A., Walleczek, J., 1992. Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role Marino, C., Pioli, C., 2010. Prenatal exposure to non-ionizing radiation: effects of of calcium signaling. FASEB J. 6, 3177–3185. WiFi signals on pregnancy outcome, peripheral B-cell compartment and antibody Wang, C., Wang, X., Zhou, H., Dong, G., Guan, X., Wang, L., Xu, X., Wang, S., Chen, P., production. Radiat. Res. 174, 732–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR2255.1. Peng, R., Hu, X., 2015. Effects of pulsed 2.856 GHz microwave exposure on BM-MSCs Sangün, Ö., Dündar, B., Çömlekçi, S., Büyükgebiz, A., 2016. The effects of electro- isolated from C57BL/6 mice. PLoS One 10 (2), e0117550. http://dx.doi.org/10. magnetic fields on the endocrine system in children and adolescents. Pediatr. 1371/journal.pone.0117550. (eCollection 2015). Endocrinol. Rev. 13, 531–545. Wang, H., Zhang, X., 2017. Magnetic fields and reactive oxygen species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. Shokri, S., Soltani, A., Kazemi, M., Sardari, D., Mofrad, F.B., 2015. Effects of Wi-Fi (2.45 18 (10), E2175. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms18102175. GHz) exposure on apopotosis, sperm parameters and testicular histomorphology in Wegner, R.E., Begall, S., Burda, H., 2006. Magnetic compass in the cornea: local an- rats: a time course study. Cell J. 17, 322–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.22074/cellj. esthesia impairs orientation in a mammal. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 4747–4750. http://dx. 2016.3740. doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02573. Sypniewska, R.K., Millenbaugh, N.J., Kiel, J.L., Blystone, R.V., Ringham, H.N., Mason, Wu, G.W., Liu, X.X., Wu, M.X., Zhao, J.Y., Chen, W.L., Lin, R.H., Lin, J.M., 2009. P.A., Witzmann, F.A., 2010. Protein changes in macrophages induced by plasma from Experimental study of millimeter wave-induced differentiation of bone marrow me- rats exposed to 35 GHz millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics 3, 656–663 (doi: senchymal stem cells into chondrocytes. Int. J. Mol. Med. 23, 461–467. 0.1002/bem.20598). Xu, F., Bai, Q., Zhou, K., Ma, L., Duan, J., Zhuang, F., Xie, C., Li, W., Zou, P., Zhu, C., Tabor, K.M., Bergeron, S.A., Horstick, E.J., Jordan, D.C., Aho, V., Porkka-Heiskanen, T., 2016. Age-dependent acute interference with stem and progenitor cell proliferation Haspel, G., Burgess, H.A., 2014. Direct activation of the Mauthner cell by electric in the hipp.ocampus after exposure to 1800 MHz electromagnetic radiation. field pulses drives ultrarapid escape responses. J. Neurophysiol. 112, 834–844. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 3, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00228.2014. Yakymenko, I.L., Sidorik, E.P., Tsybulin, A.S., 1999. Metabolic changes in cells under Teven, C.M., Greives, M., Natale, R.B., Su, Y., Luo, Q., He, B.C., Shenaq, D., He, T.C., Reid, electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems. Ukr. Biokhim Zh. R.R., 2012. Differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells is induced by high-frequency (1999) 20–28 (2011 Mar-Apr). pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Craniofac. Surg. 23, 586–593. http://dx.doi.org/10. Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., 2010. Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation 1097/SCS.0b013e31824cd6de. and mobile telephony devices. Exp. Oncol. 32, 729–736. Tök, L., Nazıroğlu, M., Doğan, S., Kahya, M.C., Tök, O., 2014. Effects of melatonin on Wi- Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., Kyrylenko, S., Chekhun, V., 2011. Long-term exposure to Fi-induced oxidative stress in lens of rats. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 62, 12–15. http://dx. microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.126166. communication systems. Exp. Oncol. 33, 62–70. Tolgskaya, M.S., Gordon, Z.V., 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., Kyrylenko, S., 2015. from Russian by B Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London (146 pp). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radia- Topsakal, S., Ozmen, O., Cicek, E., Conleckci, S., 2017. The ameliorative effect of gallic tion. Electromagnetic. Biol. Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015. acid on pancreas lesions induced by 2.45 GHz electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) in 1043557. (Early Online 1-16. ISSN: 1536-8378). young rats. J. Rad. Res. Appl. Sci. 10, 233–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras. Yildiring, M.E., Kaynar, M., Badem, H., Cavis, M., Karatus, O.F., Cimentepe, E., 2015. 2017.04.009. What is harmful for male fertility: cell phone or wireless internet? Kaosiung J. Med. Uchugonova, A., Isemann, A., Gorjup, E., Tempea, G., Bückle, R., Watanabe, W., König, Sci. 31, 480–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2015.06.006. K., 2008. Optical knock out of stem cells with extremely ultrashort femtosecond Yüksel, M., Nazıroğlu, M., Özkaya, M.O., 2016. Long-term exposure to electromagnetic pulses. J. Biophotonics 1, 463–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbio.200810047. radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices decreases plasma prolactin, pro- Van Boxem, K., Huntoon, M., Van Zundert, J., Patijn, J., van Kleef, M., Joosten, E.A., gesterone, and estrogen levels but increases uterine oxidative stress in pregnant rats 2014. Pulsed radiofrequency: a review of the basic science as applied to the patho- and their offspring. Endocrine 52, 352–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12020-015- physiology of radicular pain: a call for clinical translation. Reg. Anesth. Pain. Med. 0795-3. 39, 149–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000063. Zhang, J., Li, M., Kang, E.T., Neoh, K.G., 2016. Electrical stimulation of adipose-derived Vian, A., Roux, D., Girard, S., Bonnet, P., Paladian, E., Davies, E., Ledoigt, G., 2006. mesenchymal stem cells in conductive scaffolds and the roles of voltage-gated ion Microwave irradiation affects gene expression in plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 1, channels. Acta Biomater. 32, 46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.12. 67–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.1.2.2434. 024.

416 Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jchemneu

Review Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression

Martin L. Pall

Professor[6_TD$IF] Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, 638 NE 41st Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-3312, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium Received 13 April 2015 channel (VGCC) activation. Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional Received in revised form 1 August 2015 evidence confirm this mechanism. Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce Accepted 9 August 2015 neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome, and the focus of this review is whether Available online 21 August 2015 these are indeed well documented and consistent with the known mechanism(s) of action of such EMFs. VGCCs occur in very high densities throughout the nervous system and have near universal roles in Keywords: release of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones. Soviet and Western literature shows that Excessive calcium effects much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain Oxidative/nitrosative stress Low-intensity microwave electromagnetic and peripheral nervous system, such that nervous system histology and function show diverse and fields substantial changes. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies. 18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose–response relationships. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychi- atric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes. In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects. ß 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 44 2. Microwave/lower frequency EMFs act to activate voltage-gated calcium channels ...... 44 3. Genetic polymorphism studies ...... 44 4. Histological and functional changes in central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) in animals exposed to microwave EMFs ...... 44 5. Older epidemiological reviews and other related studies ...... 45

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001 0891-0618/ß 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 44 M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51

6. Specific epidemiological studies on neuropsychiatric effects of microwave EMFs ...... 45 7. Criteria for assessing causality in epidemiological studies ...... 46 8. Discussion and conclusions ...... 48 References...... 50

blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers, showing that VGCC activation has roles in producing a wide variety of EMF Chemicals having roles: effects. There is a large literature on changes in calcium fluxes and in calcium signaling following microwave EMF exposure (partially Calcium(2+) reviewed in Walleczek, 1992; Adey, 1993); each of these, including Nitric oxide (NO) calcium efflux changes, can be explained as being due to VGCC Oxido nitrite (peroxynitrite) activation, again suggesting a widespread role of VGCC activation in producing biological responses to EMFs. Pilla (2012) showed that pulsed microwave field exposure, produced an almost instantaneous increase in calcium/calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide (NO) signaling, providing strong evidence that these fields 1. Introduction can produce an almost instantaneous VGCC activation. It is likely, that these EMFs act directly on the voltage sensor of the VGCCs to Microwave syndrome (Hocking, 2001; Johnson Liakouris, produce VGCC activation (Pall, 2015) with the voltage sensor being 1998), a combination of various neuropsychiatric symptoms exquisitely sensitive to these EMFs because of its physical originally described in persons with occupational exposures to properties and location in the plasma membrane. microwave frequency EMFs, has been disputed largely because of EMFs have been proposed to act to produce a wide variety of the lack of an apparent mechanism for generating these symptoms. responses in the cell, via downstream effects of VGCC activation It is reported to often include such symptoms as fatigue, headache, (Pall, 2013, 2014, 2015), including elevated intracellular calcium insomnia, dysesthesia (impaired sensation), irritability, lack of [Ca2+]i, excessive calcium and nitric oxide signaling and also concentration and other symptoms (Hocking, 2001; Johnson excessive peroxynitrite, free radicals and oxidative stress. Liakouris, 1998). Similar but more extensive combinations of VGCC activation has been shown to have a universal or near- symptoms have been reported following occupational exposures universal role in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain and in two U.S. government reports from the 1970s/1980s (Naval also in the release of hormones by neuroendocrine cells (Berridge, Medical Research Institute Research Report, 1971; Raines, 1981) 1998; Dunlap et al., 1995; Wheeler et al., 1994), with such release and following environmental exposures as described in two more being produced by calcium signaling. There are high densities of recent reviews (Khurana et al., 2010; Levitt and Lai, 2010). diverse VGCCs occurring in neurons throughout the nervous The goal here is not just to review the epidemiology, however, system. Both the high VGCC density and their function in but more importantly to consider the issue of possible physiologi- neurotransmitter and neuroendocrine release throughout the cal mechanism(s). Hennekens and Buring (1989), on p. 40 in their nervous system suggests that the nervous system is likely to be textbook Epidemiology in Medicine state ‘‘The belief in the highly sensitive to low intensity EMFs. existence of a cause and effect relationship is enhanced if there is a known or postulated biologic mechanism by which the exposure might reasonably alter risk of developing disease.’’ It is of 3. Genetic polymorphism studies critical importance therefore to assess possible biological mecha- nism before considering the epidemiological evidence. Genetic polymorphism studies are powerful tools for looking at Accordingly, this paper considers the mechanism by which low the roles of specific proteins in human populations. In Table 1,a intensity microwave EMFs impact the cells of our bodies, how that series of genetic polymorphism studies have been performed that mechanism may be predicted to impact the nervous system, show that an allele producing increased expression of the gene evidence for such impact from experimental animal studies, encoding the channel of the main L-type VGCC in the brain, genetic polymorphism evidence for that mechanism acting in produces diverse neuropsychiatric effects. These studies clearly humans to produce neuropsychiatric effects and finally, the show that excess L-type VGCC activity can cause neuropsychiatric epidemiological evidence for such effects in human populations effects. They also predict, therefore, that increased VGCC activity with repeated low level microwave EMF exposure. Consideration produced by microwave EMFs may be able to also produce of each of these types of evidence influences the overall widespread neuropsychiatric effects. interpretation presented in this paper.

2. Microwave/lower frequency EMFs act to activate voltage- 4. Histological and functional changes in central nervous gated calcium channels system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) in animals exposed to microwave EMFs In 24 different studies reviewed earlier (Pall, 2013) and two additional studies (Li et al., 2014; Lisi et al., 2006), microwave and The most extensive literature on histological and functional lower frequency low intensity EMF effects were blocked or greatly changes in animals is from the Soviet literature from the 1950s/ lowered by calcium channel blockers, agents thought to be specific 1960s with additional Western literature from the same time for blocking voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). In these period. Both Soviet and non-Soviet literature were reviewed in an 26 studies, a total of 5 distinct types of channel blockers were used, English language Publication by Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973). This with each type having a distinct structure and binding to a distinct publication is, therefore, the main focus of this section. That site, such that it is essentially certain that these must be acting by publication was divided into thermal and non-thermal exposure blocking VGCCs, which is their only known common property. In studies, with the non-thermal studies which occupy the majority each of these 26 studies, each of the responses studied, were of the text (pp. 53–137) being of sole interest here. M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51 45

Table 1 Influence of genetic polymorphism of the CACNA1C in producing diverse neuropsychiatric effects.

Citation Genetic polymorphism Changes produced by allele of gene

Bhat et al. (2012) Polymorphism producing Increased expression of Review: The polymorphism Is associated with increased CACNA1C L-type VGCC subunit susceptibility to bipolar disorder, ‘‘depression, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, as well as changes in brain function and structure in control subjects who have no diagnosable psychiatric illness.’’ Bigos et al. (2010) Polymorphism producing Increased expression of Associated with increases in both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia CACNA1C L-type VGCC subunit Krug et al. (2010) Polymorphism producing increased expression of CACNA1C Negatively influences language production on a semantic level L-type VGCC subunit Krug et al. (2014) Polymorphism producing increased expression of CACNA1C Influences episodic memory and retrieval L-type VGCC subunit Soeiro-de-Souza Polymorphism producing increased expression of CACNA1C Produces impaired facial emotion recognition et al. (2012) L-type VGCC subunit Tesli et al. (2013) Polymorphism producing increased expression of CACNA1C Produces increased activation of the amygdala during emotional L-type VGCC subunit processing Thimm et al. (2011) Polymorphism producing increased expression of CACNA1C Associated with attention deficits including alerting, orienting and L-type VGCC subunit executive control of attention

These were all derived from the Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973) Grafstro¨m et al., 2008; Kumlin et al., 2007; Lo´ pez-Martı´n et al., review and page numbers listed are page numbers from that 2006; Mausset-Bonnefont et al., 2004; Odaci et al., 2008; Rag˘betli document. All refer to changes produced by non-thermal et al., 2010; Salford et al., 2003; Sonmez et al., 2010). exposures in the nervous system of experimental animals, with most being in rats. 5. Older epidemiological reviews and other related studies This discussion scrolls down through Table 2. The majority of the histological changes seen in these mostly Two U.S. Government reports each listed many apparent rodent studies, are seen in the nervous system, despite its being neuropsychiatric effects of microwave/radiofrequency EMFs and less than 2% of the rodent cell mass. There are statements made a third recognized the role of non-thermal effects on our bodies, that the nervous system, both central and peripheral, is the most but had only a little consideration of neuropsychiatric effects. highly sensitive tissue to these non-thermal microwave and lower The earliest to these was a Naval Medical Research Institute frequency EMFs. Following the nervous system in sensitivity are (NMRI) Research Report (1971) which listed 40 apparent neuro- the myocardium and the testis; myocardial cells are known to have psychiatric changes produced by non-thermal exposures includ- very high densities of VGCCs with especially high densities in the ing: 5 central/peripheral nervous system (NS) changes, 9 CNS pacemaker cells and the testis is known to have high densities effects, 4 autonomic system effects, 17 psychological disorders, specifically of the T-type VGCCs. Pulsed EMFs are more active in 4 behavioral changes and 2 misc. effects. This NMRI report also producing histological changes in the brain than are non-pulsed provided a supplementary document listing over 2300 citations fields, in two studies reviewed; there is a much larger literature documenting these and other effects of microwave exposures in showing that in most cases pulsed fields are more biologically humans and in animals. active (Pall, 2015; Pangopoulos et al., 2013; Belyaev, 2015). The Raines (1981) NASA report reviewed extensive literature A wide variety of brain and peripheral nervous system tissues based on occupational exposures to non-thermal microwave EMFs, show histological changes following non-thermal exposures. with that literature coming from U.S., Western European and Among the important tissues impacted are the hypothalamus Eastern European studies. There are no obvious differences in the and pituitary gland, where both show similar patterns of changes literature coming from these different regions. Based on multiple in neuroendocrine activities. There Is an initial increase in studies, Raines (1981) reports 19 neuropsychiatric effects to be neuroendocrine activity (this may be produced directly by VGCC associated with occupational microwave/radiofrequency EMFs. stimulation of secretion), followed over time by ‘‘exhaustion’’ of The Bolen (1994) report put out by the Rome Laboratory of the neuroendocrine activity (this may be produced by tissue damage U.S. Air Force, acknowledged the role of non-thermal effects of produced from long term intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i elevation). microwave EMFs on humans. This report states in the Conclusion There are widespread histological changes produced in neuro- section that ‘‘Experimental evidence has shown that exposure to nal and neuroendocrine tissues. These were repeatedly reported to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological be largely reversible on cessation of EMF exposure. They become, processes. The nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation exposure however, irreversible when exposure is extended in time. There are are becoming important measures of biological interaction of EM changes in EEG activity, which may be an easily measurable fields.’’ Clearly Bolen (1994) rejects the claim that only thermal monitor of neurological damage. effects occur. Bolen (1994) discusses a specific non-thermal In a summary statement, Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973) state, neuropsychiatric effect, where anesthetized animals are awakened ‘‘This does not confirm the view, so widely held in the past among when the head is irradiated with microwave EMFs. This suggests a Soviet investigators and still maintained to a large extent even at similar mechanism to that acting in humans where such EMFs the present time in the West, that the action of microwaves is produce insomnia (see below). entirely thermal.’’ While there were many studies of brain impact of non-thermal 6. Specific epidemiological studies on neuropsychiatric effects EMFs performed in the 1950s/60s that make the information of microwave EMFs content of Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973) quite high, there is also a substantial recent literature on brain effects of non-thermal There are 26 different epidemiological studies described in microwave EMF exposures (see, for example: Ammari et al., Table 3. Although 4 of these only studied a single neuropsychiatric 2008a,b; Bas et al., 2009; Brillaud et al., 2007; Carballo-Quinta´s effect, 22 of these each provide substantial evidence for the pattern et al., 2011; Eberhardt et al., 2008; Dasdag et al., 2009, 2012; described in the earlier U.S. reports, that a wide range of 46 M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51

Table 2 Histological and functional changes in brain function in animals following exposure to non-thermal microwave EMFs.

Observations including page numbers Comment from Author

The majority of the histological changes seen following non-thermal exposures, High CNS sensitivity to EMFs is predicted by the high density of occurred in the nervous system, despite its being only about 2% of the tissue VGCCs that occur in neurons throughout the nervous system, mass in rodents; this suggests that the nervous system is highly sensitive to plus the VGCC role in neurotransmitter and neuroendocrine such exposures. Elsewhere (pp. 129, 136), it is suggested that the nervous release. system is the most sensitive tissue, followed by the heart and the testis, among all of the tissues of the body. The most severe histological changes produced by these non-thermal EMF exposures occur in the nervous system (pp. 136). Pulsed fields were more active than non-pulsed fields in producing histological Pulsed fields have often been found to be more biologically changes (pp. 71, 97). active than are non-pulsed fields in many different studies from many countries (Pall, 2015; Pangopoulos et al., 2013; Belyaev, 2015). Nervous system regions impacted by non-thermal microwave and lower frequency fields include: cortex, diencephalon including the hypothalamus and thalamus, hippocampus, autonomic ganglia, sensory fibers, pituitary gland including neurohypophysis. Neuroendocrine changes seem to undergo change over increased time of exposure. Elevated [Ca2+]i stimulates hormone secretion. However when Neurosecretion in the hypothalamus and in the pituitary each go through a complex such elevated [Ca2+]i occurs over extended time periods it is sequence over time, where EMF exposure initially produces increased hormone highly damaging to the cell, leading in some cases to apoptosis; secretion but where over time, the neurosecretory cells become ‘‘exhausted’’, leading thus this time course of action should not be surprising. to lowered secretion and in some cases cell death (pp. 77–96). Histological changes include boutons/argyrophilia, smaller neurons, vacuole formation in neuroendocrine cells, bead-like thickening along dendrites (pp. 66, 70, 71, 73, 97, 98, 100, 111, 115–117, 121–125). Spines near the ends of dendrites become deformed and with still more sessions of irradiation, disappeared entirely (p. 70). Sensory neurons, following exposures, developed changes characteristic of irritation, with ‘‘marked tortuosity of the nerve fibers.’’ Many histological changes are seen in the hypothalamic cells (pp. 87–92) as their neuroendocrine function becomes impacted. Histological changes were found even with exposures that produced no apparent functional changes. Many histological and functional changes are reported to initially be reversible, following If this is also true in humans, then claims that there cannot be cessation of exposure, but progressively become irreversible with longer exposure. non-thermal effects, claims which act to prolong exposures, (pp. 64, 72, 74). Paralleling the development of irreversibility, it is found that ‘‘Repeated may be causing irreversible damage to many humans. exposure leads to gradual increase in severity of observed changes.’’ ... including ‘‘increasingly severe disturbance of conditioned reflex activity in the animals, changes in responses of animals particularly sensitive to acoustic stimulation....’’ (p. 104). EEG changes (pp. 55, 60, 102), including seizure activity following sensory provocation. Lai (1997) has an extensive review of EEG changes in animals following non-thermal microwave EMF exposures Neurodegeneration is reported in a number of places in this review (pp. 72, 83, 117). Synaptic connections in regions of the brain are disrupted (pp. 65–74, 97, 113, 121, 136), Synaptic connections are known to be disrupted in autism; and at the extreme, some neurons are completely asynaptic (p. 73). could this suggest that autism may be generated by EMF exposure? No doubt, we need much more evidence on this. ‘‘after prolonged and repeated irradiation with low-intensity centimeter waves, with no One wonders whether almost 60 years ago, the Soviet elevation of the body temperature and when the animal’s condition remained literature may have already described a possible animal model satisfactory, changes were nevertheless found in the sensory fibers of the skin and viscera for EHS. None is known to exist today, and because of that, EHS in the form of irritation phenomena. These findings concur with the view in the literature studies are severely constrained. Clearly one needs to be that the receptor system as a whole and, in particular its preterminal portions are highly skeptical about this interpretation, but it is of great importance sensitive.’’ p. 76. This description is similar to what is reported to occur in electromagnetic that this be further studied. hypersensitivity (EHS). Other such studies are described and include cumulative changes over time, that may also explain changes reported in EHS (pp. 75, 99, 100, 104).

neuropsychiatric effects are produced by exposure to various non- making that judgment (see pp. 39–43 in [8_TD$DIFF]Hennekens and Buring, thermal microwave frequency EMFs. Perhaps the most important [9_TD$DIFF]1989): of these 26 is the Santini et al. (2003) study of people living near Strength of Association: Is there a strong correlation between cell phone base stations. exposure and the neuropsychiatric symptoms? There clearly is for There are three recent studies on the generation of headache several studies cited in Raines (1981). One example is the Dwyer during or shortly following long mobile phone calls (listed under and Leeper (1978) study (see Table 3) where there is a large Chu et al., 2011 in Table 3). The timing of development of these increase in symptoms and where that increase is greater with headaches and the finding that they occur on the ipsilateral side of longer occupational exposure. Another example is the Lerner the head, the side receiving much higher EMF exposure during the (1980) study of 1300 microwave workers, where workers with call, both argue strongly that these headaches are caused by the relatively low exposure levels had an approximate doubling of long mobile phone calls. Such causality was concluded earlier by neurological complaints and where those with substantially higher Frey (1998) based on earlier studies and is now still more strongly exposure levels had an approximate tripling of neurological documented. complaints over controls. Sadcikova (1974) found that 7 of 8 neuropsychiatric symptoms studied, showed a statistically significant rise in prevalence with longer occupational exposure 7. Criteria for assessing causality in epidemiological studies (see Table 3). Sadcikova (1974), also found that microwave workers had increases of 3 to over 10-fold in: feeling of heaviness It is important to consider the different criteria that allow one to in the head; tiredness; irritability; sleepiness; partial loss of judge whether a cause and effect relationship is justified by the memory; and skin sensitivity. There is also a strong association studies listed in Table 3 and the individual studies cited in Raines where important new exposures occur – this is clearly the case (1981). There are five such criteria that should be considered in with all of the studies of people living near cell/mobile phone base M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51 47

Table 3 Neuropsychiatric symptoms apparently produced by exposure to various electromagnetic fields.

Citation EMF exposure Apparent neuropsychiatric symptoms

Abdel-Rassoul et al. (2007) Living near mobile phone base Significant increases in neuropsychiatric complaints included: headache, memory station changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance; attributed to effects of EMFs on the human nervous system. Al-Khlaiwi and Meo (2004) Mobile phone use Higher prevalence of fatigue, headache, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance; the authors conclude that mobile phone use is a risk factor for developing these symptoms. Altpeter et al. (2000) Short-wave broadcasting tower, Sleep disruption shown to occur, correlated with exposures and apparent increase ranging from 6.1 to 21.8 MHz over time; short term suppression of melatonin shown, based on melatonin increases during a 3 day period when the tower was turned off. Bortkiewicz et al. (2004) Living near cell phone base station Sleep disturbance, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, EMFs nausea, lack of appetite, headache, vertigo. Bortkiewicz et al. (2012) Living near mobile phone base Dose response relationships for sleep disturbance, irritability, depression, blurred stations vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite. Chu et al. (2011), also Mobile phone use Headache during prolonged mobile phone use or within an hour following such use, Chia et al. (2000), Oftedal with pain occurring on the ipsilateral side of the head; similar observations et al. (2000) obtained in each of the 3 studies in column 1; see also Frey (1998). Conrad (2013) Smart meter EMF exposure 14 common new symptoms (both severe and moderate) among those exposed and symptomatic, 13 apparent neuropsychiatric: Insomnia, tinnitus, pressure in the head, concentration difficulty, headaches, memory problems, agitation, dizziness, fatigue, skin tingling/burning, involuntary muscle contractions, eye/vision problems, numbness; These ranged in prevalence from 63% to 19% of those experiencing symptoms, such that most symptomatic people experienced multiple symptoms. Dasdag et al. (1992) People working in MW These groups suffered from headache, fatigue, irritability, stress, sleepiness, loss of broadcasting or at a television appetite, loss of hearing. transmitter station Dwyer and Leeper (1978) People working in radiofrequency Headache, eyestrain, dizziness, disturbed sleep, daytime sleepiness, moodiness, EMFs mental depression, memory impairment, muscle and/or cardiac pain, breathing difficulties, increased perspiration, difficulty with sex life. Eger and Jahn (2010) Living near mobile phone base Neuropsychiatric symptoms, with most showing dose–response relationships: station depression; headache; cerebral symptoms; dizziness; disorders of optical and acoustic sensory systems; sleep disturbance; skin changes; with the exception of dizziness, all of these had p < 0.001. Johnson Liakouris (1998) Study of personnel in U.S. embassy Statistically significant increases in neurological (peripheral nerves and ganglia), in Moscow exposed to microwave dermographism (skin responses), irritability, depression, loss of appetite, EMFs concentration difficulties, peripheral ganglia and nerve dysfunction. Khan (2008) Excessive mobile phone use Complaints of headache, fatigue, impaired concentration, memory disturbance, sleeplessness, hearing problems. Kolodynskii and Kolodinska Children living near a Radio Memory dysfunction, attention dysfunction, lowered motor function, slowed (1996) Location Station, Latvia reaction time, lowered neuromuscular endurance. Lamech (2014) Exposure to wireless smart meter The most frequent symptoms to develop after smart meter radiation exposure were radiation in Victoria, Australia insomnia, headache, tinnitus, fatigue, cognitive disturbances, dysesthesias (abnormal sensation), dizziness. Navarro et al. (2003) Living near cell phone base station Statistically significant dose response relationships for fatigue, irritability, headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty of concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder & dizziness. Oberfeld et al. (2004) Living near cell phone base station Statistically significant dose–response relationships for headache, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, visual disorder, nausea, sleeping disorders, dizziness, poor concentration, memory loss. Oto et al. (1994) Occupational exposure of 10 neuropsychiatric changes were assessed, all showing statistically significant 25 workers to either UHF television changes compared with controls: Somatization*, obsessive compulsivity*, broadcasting (10) or to 1062 kHz interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety*, hostility*, phobic anxiety*, paranoid medium wave broadcasting (15) ideation, psychoticism*, sleeping disturbance. *p < 0.001. Sadcikova (1974) Occupational exposure to Heaviness in head*, fatigue*, irritability*, sleepiness, memory loss*, cardiac pain*, microwave radiation, including at dermographism (skin sensitivity)*, hyperhidrosis* <.07 mW/cm2 * significant increase with time of exposure. Salama and Abou El Naga High cell (mobile) phone use Most common effects were headache, ear ache, sense of fatigue, sleep disturbance, (2004) concentration difficulty, face burning sensation. The first three of these had very high statistical significance for correlation with extent of cell phone use. Santini et al. (2003) Living near cell phone base stations Each of the following neuropsychiatric symptoms showed statistical significant dose–response relationships: nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbance, irritability, depressive tendencies, lowered libido, headache, sleep disturbance, feeling of discomfort, fatigue. Schu¨ z et al. (2009) Mobile phone use Found a small, statistically significant increase in migraine and vertigo. Also found an apparent lowered occurrence of Alzheimer’s, other dementia, Parkinson’s and epilepsy – these latter were interpreted as being due to perhaps early symptoms of the developing diseases lowering probability of acquiring a mobile phone. So¨derqvist et al. (2008) Use of mobile phone among Increased mobile phone use was associated with increases in tiredness, stress, adolescents headache, anxiety, concentration difficulties and sleep disturbances. Thome´e et al. (2011) High mobile phone use High mobile phone use was associated with statistically significant rises in stress and sleep disturbance, with somewhat weaker association with depression. Waldmann-Selsam et al. Digital TV signaling Constant headaches, pressure in head, drowsiness, sleep problems, tightness in (2009) chest, shortness of breadth, depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner burning, leg weakness, pain in limbs, stabbing pain in various organs, weight increase. 48 M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51 stations, listed in Table 3 and also with the two studies of people [11_TD$DIFF], Dwyer and Leeper(2000) (1978), Eger and Jahn ([12_TD$DIFF]Lerner 2010), who become exposed to radiation from smart meters. The studies ([13_TD$DIFF], Navarro et al.1980) (2003), Oberfeld et al. (2004), Salama and listed in Table 3 under Chu et al. (2011) (see also Chia et al., 2000; Abou El Naga (2004), Santini et al. (2003) and Thome´e et al. Oftedal et al., 2000) are of a special type. Here people making very (2011). Thus these data do fit well to the assumed dose–response long (over 1 h) cell/mobile phone calls develop headaches an hour relationship, found in most causal roles. The Altpeter et al. (2000) or more following the initiation of the long call. So these occur study showed a special type of evidence for causality: during a 3- within a specific time range following initiation of these long calls, day period when the broadcasting tower was turned off, the such that headache would only occur very infrequently in that time melatonin levels recovered to near-normal levels. The studies of frame by chance. So here again, there is a strong association. While headache occurrence on prolonged cell/mobile phone calls there is no question that many of these studies show high strength (typically well over one hour) listed under Chu et al. (2011) in of association, it is also clear that it is becoming progressively more Table 3 also suggest the assumed dose–response relationship (see difficult to do these studies. As exposures become almost universal also Chia et al., 2000; Oftedal et al., 2000 and earlier citations listed in countries around the world, it is getting difficult if not in Frey, 1998). Because such headaches only occur with prolonged impossible to find good negative controls. There may be a similar cell/mobile phone calls, these studies also provide evidence for a problem in doing animal studies, such that it may be necessary to dose–response relationship because low doses are ineffective. raise animals in Faraday cages in order to avoid exposures that Furthermore these same studies provide evidence for such a dose– would otherwise occur as a consequence of our near ubiquitous response relationship from another type of observation. Because EMFs. the headaches occur predominantly on the ipsilateral side of the Biological credibility is extremely strong here, with three aspects head which receives much higher EMF exposure intensity, rather of the biology predicting that these low intensity fields cause than on the contralateral side of the head, which receives much widespread neuropsychiatric effects. This was discussed above and lower intensities, this provides an additional type of evidence for is reconsidered in the following section. the predicted dose–response relationship. Consistency within the different epidemiological studies and While the evidence is convincing that the various neuropsychi- with other types of studies. The epidemiological studies listed in atric apparent consequences of microwave EMF exposure are in fact Table 3 and also those showing neuropsychiatric effects that were caused by such exposures, there may be somewhat more cited in Raines (1981) have been performed in many different controversy about another EMF-neuropsychiatric linkage. Havas countries with different cultures. They have been performed in et al. (2010) have reported a similar list of neuropsychiatric multiple countries in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle symptoms in electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) patients. They East and in East Asia, as well as in the U.S. and Australia. They are, found that each of the following symptoms were common in EHS: therefore, not limited to one or two cultural contexts. This is poor short term memory; difficulty of concentration; eye problems; deemed, therefore, an important indicator of causality. We also sleep disorder; feeling unwell; headache; dizziness; tinnitus; have a surprising consistency of apparent neuropsychiatric effects chronic fatigue; tremors; body pain; difficulty speaking; tingling of different fields, including various occupational exposures and sensation in feet or hands; difficulty writing; difficulty walking; exposures to cell/mobile phone base stations, exposure to the migraine. The similarity of these symptoms to the most commonly phones themselves, exposure to smart meter pulses, and other found symptoms following non-thermal microwave EMF exposures EMFs (see Table 3). Pulsation patterns, frequencies and exact (Table 3), suggests that EHS is a genuine sensitivity to EMFs. In the intensities may produce various biological responses (Pall, 2015; bottom row in Table 2, sensitivities were found in rodent studies Pangopoulos et al., 2013; Belyaev, 2015) so it is a bit surprising that following non-thermal exposure that suggest a possible animal we have as much consistency as we do have across different types model for the study of EHS. Each of these EHS-related issues needs to of exposures. We also have consistency with the biology discussed be followed up experimentally. in the previous section. Because elevated VGCC activity produced by genetic polymorphism (Table 1) produces diverse neuropsy- 8. Discussion and conclusions chiatric effects, it is not surprising that elevation of VGCC activity produced by microwave EMF exposure apparently also produces In the previous section, each of the five criteria for assessing diverse neuropsychiatric effects. Similarly because non-thermal whether an epidemiological association is causal, were considered. EMF exposures produce widespread changes in brain structure and Those five are (Hennekens and Buring, 1989): (1) strength of function in animals (Tolgskaya and Gordon, 1973), it is not association; (2) biological credibility; (3) consistency; (4) time surprising that the neuropsychiatric symptoms, which are sequence; (5) dose–response relationship. Each of these five produced as a consequence of brain dysfunction are produced provide strong support for causality such that the combination of by such EMFs. all five provides compelling evidence for causality. Low-intensity Time sequence: It is clear that the all of these effects follow microwave frequency EMFs do cause diverse neuropsychiatric exposure in the various studies that have been published. In some symptoms. While each of these five is important here, the one that studies, it is also clear that longer occupational exposure times is most important is the criterion of biological credibility. produce increased symptom prevalence. These include Dwyer and Three related sets of biological observations each predict that Leeper (1978) and Baranski and Edelwejn (1975). These observa- low-intensity microwave EMFs produce widespread neuropsychi- tions all support a causal relationship between exposure to EMF atric effects: and the development of neuropsychiatric symptoms. Dose–response relationship: It is assumed, here, that biological 1. Such EMFs act via activation of VGCCs, acting through the VGCC effects have a positive correlation with the intensity of the voltage sensor which is predicted to be exquisitely sensitive to apparent causal stressor. This is not necessarily true of EMF effects, these EMFs (Pall, 2015). VGCCs occur in high densities because it has been shown that there are ‘‘window effects’’ where throughout the nervous system and have essential roles specific intensities have larger biological effects, than do either throughout the nervous system in releasing neurotransmitters lower or higher intensities (Pall, 2015; Pangopoulos et al., 2013; and neuroendocrine hormones. These properties predict, Belyaev, 2015). Nevertheless, where different intensities were therefore, that these low intensity non-thermal microwave studied in these epidemiological studies, they do show the dose– EMFs cause widespread changes in the nervous system, causing, response relationship assumed here including Altpeter et al[10_TD$DIFF]in turn, diverse. neuropsychiatric effects. M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51 49

2. Elevated VGCC activity, produced by an allele of the CACNA1C substantially lower than that. Each of these, having shown positive gene which encodes the channel of the main L-type VGCC in the results in 5 or more studies are highly unlikely, therefore, to have brain, produces various neuropsychiatric effects (Table 1). This occurred by chance. Stong statistical significance is also seen for predicts, that low intensity non-thermal microwave frequency individual neuropsychiatric effects reported to have p < 0.001 in EMFs which also produce elevated L-type and other VGCC the Eger and Jahn (2010) and Oto et al. (1994) studies (see Table 3). activity, therefore produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects. EEG changes may well be part of microwave syndrome, as well. 3. Studies reviewed in the Tolgskaya and Gordon, 1973 publication While none of the studies described in Table 3 measured EEGs, six (Table 2) have shown that the cells of the mammalian nervous studies of human occupational exposure cited in the Raines (1981) system show high sensitivity to various non-thermal microwave showed EEG changes (Baranski and Edelwejn, 1975; Bise, 1978; and lower frequency EMFs, being apparently more sensitive Dumanskij and Shandala, 1974; Lerner[2_TD$DIFF][14_TD$DIFF], 1980; Sheppard and than any other organ in the body of rodents. These studies Eisenbud, 1977). Murbach et al. (2014) cited 10 human studies in predict that the human nervous system is likely to be similarly support of their statement that ‘‘the most consistently reported sensitive to these EMFs, predicting, therefore, widespread effects (of mobile phone use) in various studies conducted by neuropsychiatric effects in humans. different laboratories are changes in the electroencephalogram (EEG) power spectrum.’’ Three recent studies (Lustenberger et al., We not only have biological credibility but also more 2013; Schmid et al., 2012a,b) and several earlier studies cited in importantly, each of these distinct but interrelated biological Wagner et al. (1998) have each shown EEG changes in sleeping considerations predicts that low-intensity, non-thermal micro- humans exposed to non-thermal pulsed microwave fields. Two wave EMFs produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects. That recent studies showed EEG changes in persons exposed to Wi-Fi common prediction is verified by extensive data summarized in fields (Maganioti et al., 2010; Papageorgiou et al., 2011). Lai (1997) citations provided by the Naval Medical Research Institute described 8 animal studies showing changes in EEG patterns in Research Report (June 1971), data provided by The Raines animals exposed to non-thermal EMFs and three additional animal (1981) NASA report, and by 26 epidemiological studies summa- studies were described in Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973). With the rized in Table 3. exception of the 6 studies cited in the second sentence in this The most commonly reported neuropsychiatric symptoms from paragraph, all of these are direct experimental studies which are these studies are summarized in Table 4. not, therefore, susceptible to the questions of causality that can be A total of 22 different studies described in Table 3 were used for raised about epidemiological studies. It is the author’s view that data for this table, but not 4 others that only assessed a single future studies should consider studying EEG changes as an neuropsychiatric end point. The Altpeter study which only objectively measurable assessment of brain physiology and that assessed sleep disturbance/melatonin depletion and the three before and after increased exposure studies should be considered studies listed under Chu et al. which only assessed headache when a new EMF source is to be introduced into human occurrence following long cell phone calls, listed in Table 3 were populations. While such studies must be done carefully, given not included. Because many of the studies only assessed from 3 to the complexity of EEGs, even very small numbers of individuals 7 specific symptoms, it is not surprising that the numbers of may produce highly statistically significant results in well studies reporting a specific symptom fall far below 22. Where designed studies analyzed with paired t-tests. several symptom descriptions were included under one heading, One of the citations from the previous paragraph, Bise (1978) such as dysesthesia, if a study had more than one of these symptom reviewed earlier studies of low level microwave frequency descriptions, it was only counted once. exposures in humans and concluded that such EMFs produced All the symptoms listed in Table 4 should be considered the following neuropsychiatric effects: headache, fatigue, irrita- established parts of microwave syndrome (Hocking, 2001; Johnson bility, dizziness, loss of appetite, sleepiness, sweating, difficulty of Liakouris, 1998). Even if the statistical significance in each study concentration, memory loss, depression, emotional instability, was of the lowest statistical significance (p < .05) one would dermographism, tremor, hallucinations and insomnia. The strong expect only 1 positive study to occur at random out of the similarity of this list from 37 years ago and the list in Table 4 should 22 studies included here. Because many individual symptoms were be noted. The Bise (1978) list is based on occupational exposure not surveyed in many individual studies, the expectation is studies whereas the current list in Table 4 is based primarily on EMF exposures from cell/mobile phone base stations, from heavy

Table 4 cell phone usage and from smart meters, three types of exposures Commonly reported neuropsychiatric symptoms following microwave EMF that did not exist in 1978. The strong similarity between the Bise exposure. (1978) list and the current one 37 years later alone produces a compelling argument that the 11 neuropsychiatric effects found on Symptom(s) Numbers of studies reporting both lists are caused by exposure to multiple types of low-intensity microwave EMFs. Sleep disturbance/insomnia 17 Headache 14 The pattern of evidence is compelling in support of the earlier Fatigue/tiredness 11 statement of Levitt and Lai (2010) that ‘‘the primary questions now Depression/depressive symptoms 10 involve specific exposure parameters, not the reality of complaints Dysesthesia (vision/hearing/olfactory 10 or attempts to attribute such complaints to psychosomatic causes, dysfunction) malingering or beliefs in paranormal phenomena.’’ Concentration/attention/cognitive 10 dysfunction We can barely imagine how the combinations of neuropsychi- Dizziness/vertigo 9 atric effects, including those in Table 4, will influence human Memory changes 8 behavior and social interactions, now that the majority of the Restlessness/tension/anxiety/stress/ 8 human populations on earth are exposed to ever increasing agitation/feeling of discomfort Irritability 7 intensities and diversity of microwave frequency EMFs. You may Loss of appetite/body weight 6 recall that three of the occupational exposure studies cited in Skin tingling/burning/inflammation/ 6 (Raines, 1981 showed increasing prevalence of neuropsychiatric dermographism symptoms with years of exposure to consistent patterns of EMF Nausea 5 exposure intensities (Dwyer and Leeper, 1978; Sadcikova, 1974; 50 M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51

Baranski and Edelwejn, 1975). With ever increasing exposures in people occupationally exposed to RF and microwave. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 6 (4), 37–39. human populations, we have no idea what the consequences of Dumanskij, J.D., Shandala, M.G., 1974. The biologic action and hygienic these ever increasing exposures will be. significance of electromagnetic fields of super-high and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In: Czerski, P., et al. (Eds.), Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Conflict of interest Symposium, Warsaw15–18 October 1973. Dunlap, K., Luebke, J.L., Turner, T.J., 1995. Exocytic Ca++ channels in the [3_TD$DIFF] mammalian central nervous system. Neuroscience 18, 89–98. The author declares no conflict of interest . Dwyer, M.J., Leeper, D.B., 1978. A Current Literature Report on the Carcinogenic Properties of Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation. DHEW Publication References (NIOSH), , pp. 78–134. Eberhardt, J.L., Persson, B.R., Brun, A.E., Salford, L.G., Malmgren, L.O., 2008. Blood–brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O.A., Salem, M.A., Michael, A., Farahat, F., 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. El-Batanouny, M.A., Salem, E., 2007. Neurobehavioral effects among Electromagn. Biol. Med. 27, 215–229. inhabitants around mobile phone stations. Neurotoxicology 28, 434–440. Eger, H., Jahn, M., 2010. Specific symptoms and radiation from mobile basis Adey, W.R., 1993. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J. Cell. Biochem. 51, stations in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany: evidence for dose–effect relationship. 410–416. Umw. – Med. Ges. 23, 130–139. Al-Khlaiwi, T., Meo, S.A., 2004. Association of mobile phone radiation with Frey, A.H., 1998. Headaches from cellular telephones: are they real and what are fatigue, headache, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance in Saudi the implications? Environ. Health Perspect. 106, 101–103. population. Saudi Med. J. 25, 732–736. Grafstro¨m, G., Nittby, H., Brun, A., Malmgren, L., Persson, B.R., Salford, L.G., Altpeter, E., Battaglia, M., Bader, A., Pluger, D., Minder, C.E., Abelin, T., 2000. Ten Eberhardt, J., 2008. Histopathological examinations of rat brains after long- Years Experience with Epidemiological Research in the Vicinity of the Short- term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Brain Res. Bull. 77, Wave Broadcasting Area Schwarzenburg: What does the Story Tell Us? , 257–263. http://www.salzburg.gv.at/Proceedings_%2819%29_Altpeter.pdf. Havas, M., Marrongelle, J., Pollner, B., Kelley, E., Rees, C.R.G., Tully, L., 2010. Ammari, M., Brillaud, E., Gamez, C., Lecomte, A., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation de Seze, R., 2008a. Effect of a chronic GSM 900 MHz exposure on glia in the from 2.4 GHz phone affects autonomic nervous system. Eur. J. Oncol. Libr. 5, rat brain. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62, 273–281. 273–300. Ammari, M., Lecomte, A., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., de-Seze, R., 2008b. Exposure Hennekens, C.H., Buring, J.E., 1989. Epidemiology in Medicine. Little Brown and to GSM 900 MHz electromagnetic fields affects cerebral cytochrome c Co., Boston. oxidase activity. Toxicology 250, 70–74. Hocking, B., 2001. Microwave sickness: a reappraisal. Occup. Med. 51, 66–69. Baranski, S., Edelwejn, Z., 1975. Experimental morphologic and Johnson Liakouris, A.G., 1998. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld electroencephalographic studies of microwave effects on the nervous study: an effect of modulated microwaves? Arch. Environ. Health 53, system. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 47, 109–116. 226–228. Bas, O., Odaci, E., Kaplan, S., Acer, N., Ucok, K., Colakoglu, S., 2009. 900 MHz Khan, M.M., 2008. Adverse effects of excessive mobile phone use. Int. J. Occup. electromagnetic field exposure affects qualitative and quantitative features Med. Environ. Health 21, 289–293. of hippocampal pyramidal cells in the adult female rat. Brain Res. 1265, Khurana, V.G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., 178–185. 2010. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base Belyaev, I., 2015. Biophysical mechanisms for nonthermal microwave effects. In: stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263–267. Markov, Marko S. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine. CRC Kolodynskii, A.A., Kolodinska, V.V., 1996. Motor and psychological functions of Press, New York, pp. 49–67. school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Berridge, M.J., 1998. Neuronal calcium signaling. Neuron 21, 13–26. Latvia. Sci. Total Environ. 180, 87–93. Bhat, S., Dao, D.T., Terrillion, C.E., Arad, M., Smith, R.J., Soldatov, N.M., Gould, Krug, A., Nieratschker, V., Markov, V., Krach, S., Jansen, A., Zerres, K., Eggermann, T.D., 2012. CACNA1C (Cav1.2) in the pathophysiology of psychiatric disease. T., Sto¨cker, T., Shah, N.J., Treutlein, J., Mu¨ hleisen, T.W., Kircher, T., 2010. Prog. Neurobiol. 99, 1–14. Neuroimage 49, 1831–1836. Bigos, K.L., Mattay, V.S., Callicott, J.H., Straub, R.E., Vakkalanka, R., Kolachana, B., Krug, A., Witt, S.H., Backes, H., Dietsche, B., Nieratschker, V., Shah, N.J., No¨then, Hyde, T.M., Lipska, B.K., Kleinman, J.E., Weinberger, D.R., 2010. Genetic M.M., Rietschel, M., Kircher, T., 2014. A genome-wide supported variant in variation in CACNA1C affects brain circuitries related to mental illness. Arch. CACNA1C influences hippocampal activation during episodic memory Gen. Psychiatry 67, 939–945. encoding and retrieval. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 264, Bise, W., 1978. Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human 103–110. electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiol. Chem. Phys. 10, 387–398. Kumlin, T., Iivonen, H., Miettinen, P., Juvonen, A., van Groen, T., Puranen, L., Bolen, S.M., 1994. Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Pitka¨aho, R., Juutilainen, J., Tanila, H., 2007. Mobile phone radiation and the Safety Standards: A Review. AD-A282 886, Rome Laboratory, U.S. Air Force developing brain: behavioral and morphological effects in juvenile rats. Material Command, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Radiat. Res. 168, 471–479. Bortkiewicz, A., Zmyslony, M., Szyjkowska, A., Gadzicka, E., 2004. Subjective Lai, H., 1997. Neurological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base relating to wireless communication technology. In: Paper presented at the stations: review. Med. Pr. 55, 345–351. IBC-UK Conference: ‘‘Mobile Phones – Is There a Health Risk?’’. , http:// Bortkiewicz, A., Gadzicka, E., Szyjkowska, A., Politan´ ski, P., Mamrot, P., Szymczak, www.papcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai1.htm. W., Zmys´lony, M., 2012. Subjective complaints of people living near mobile Lamech, F., 2014. Self-reporting of symptom development from exposure to phone base stations in Poland. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 25, 31–40. radiofrequency fields of wireless smart meters in Victoria, Australia: a case Brillaud, E., Piotrowski, A., de Seze, R., 2007. Effect of an acute 900 MHz GSM series. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 20, 28–39. exposure on glia in the rat brain: a time-dependent study. Toxicology 238, Lerner, E.J., 1980. RF radiation: biological effects. IEEE Spectr. 17 (December), 23–33. 51–59. Carballo-Quinta´s, M1, Martı´nez-Silva, I., Cadarso-Sua´rez, C., Alvarez-Figueiras, Levitt, B.B., Lai, H., 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic M., Ares-Pena, F.J., Lo´ pez-Martı´n, E., 2011. A study of neurotoxic biomarkers, radiation emitted by cell towers base stations and other antenna arrays. c-fos and GFAP after acute exposure to GSM radiation at 900 MHz in the Environ. Rev. 18, 369–395. picrotoxin model of rat brains. Neurotoxicology 32, 478–494. Li, Y., Yan, X., Liu, J., Li, L., Hu, X., Sun, H., Tian, J., 2014. Pulsed electromagnetic Chia, S.E., Chia, H.P., Tan, J.S., 2000. Prevalence of headache among handheld field enhances brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression through L-type cellular telephone users in : a community study. Environ. Health voltage-gated calcium channel- and Erk-dependent signaling pathways in Perspect. 108, 1059–1062. neonatal rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neurochem. Int. 75, 96–104. Chu, M.K., Song, H.G., Kim, C., Lee, B.C., 2011, September. Clinical features of Lisi, A., Ledda, M., Rosola, E., Pozzi, D., D’Emilia, E., Giuliani, L., Foletti, A., headache associated with mobile phone use: a cross-sectional study in Modesti, A., Morris, S.J., Grimaldi, S., 2006. Extremely low frequency university students. BMC Neurol. 11, 115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471- electromagnetic field exposure promotes differentiation of pituitary 2377-11-115. corticotrope-derived AtT20 D16V cells. Bioelectromagnetics 27, 641–651. Conrad, R.H., 2013. Smart Meter Health Effects Survey and Report, http://www. Lo´ pez-Martı´n, E., Relova-Quinteiro, J.L., Gallego-Go´ mez, R., Peleteiro-Ferna´ndez, mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Exhibit- M., Jorge-Barreiro, F.J., Ares-Pena, F.J., 2006. GSM radiation triggers seizures D-Smart-Meter-Health-Effects-Report-w-AppendicesV3-1-9Reduced- and increases cerebral c-Fos positivity in rats pretreated with subconvulsive Appendices.pdf. doses of picrotoxin. Neurosci. Lett. 398, 139–144. Dasdag, S., Akdag, M.Z., Ulukaya, E., Uzunlar, A.K., Ocak, A.R., 2009. Effect of Lustenberger, C., Murbach, M., Du¨ rr, R., Schmid, M.R., Kuster, N., Achermann, P., mobile phone exposure on apoptotic glial cells and status of oxidative stress Huber, R., 2013. Stimulation of the brain with radiofrequency in rat brain. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 28, 342–354. electromagnetic field pulses affects sleep-dependent performance Dasdag, S., Akdag, M.Z., Kizil, G., Kizil, M., Cakir, D.U., Yokus, B., 2012. Effect of improvement. Brain Stimul. 6, 805–811. 900 MHz radio frequency radiation on beta amyloid protein, protein carbonyl, Maganioti, A.E., Papageorgiou, C.C., Hountala, C.D., Kyprianou, M.A., Rabavilas, and malondialdehyde in the brain. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 31, 67–74. A.D., Papadimitriou, G.N., Capsalis, C.N., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields Dasdag, S., Balci, K., Celik, M.S., Batun, S., Kaplan, A., Bolaman, Z., Tekes, S., exert gender related alterations of EEG. In: 6th International Workshop on Akdag, Z., 1992. Neurologic and biochemical findings and CD4/CD8 ratio in M.L. Pall / Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016) 43–51 51

Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Bodrun, Turkey, October, http:// Salford, L.G., Brun, A.E., Eberhardt, J.L., Malmgren, L., Persson, B.R., 2003. Nerve www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/. cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM Mausset-Bonnefont, A.L., Hirbec, H., Bonnefont, X., Privat, A., Vignon, J., de Seze, R., mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111, 881–883. 2004. Acute exposure to GSM 900 MHz electromagnetic fields induces glial Santini, R., Santini, P., Le Ruz, P., Danze, J.M., Seigne, M., 2003. Survey of people reactivity and biochemical modifications in the rat brain. Neurobiol. Dis. 17, living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 445–454. 22, 41–49. Murbach, M., Neufeld, E., Christopoulou, M., Achermann, P., Kuster, N., 2014. Schmid, M.R., Loughran, S.P., Regel, S.J., Murbach, M., Bratic Grunauer, A., Modeling of EEG electrode artifacts and thermal ripples in human Rusterholz, T., Bersagliere, A., Kuster, N., Achermann, P., 2012a. Sleep EEG radiofrequency exposure studies. Bioelectromagnetics 35, 273–283. alterations: effects of different pulse-modulated radio frequency Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, 1971, June. Biobliography of electromagnetic fields. J. Sleep Res. 21, 50–58. Reported Biological Phenomena (‘‘Effects’’) and Clinical Manifestations Schmid, M.R., Murbach, M., Lustenberger, C., Maire, M., Kuster, N., Achermann, Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report No. 2 Revised. P., Loughran, S.P., 2012b. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of pulsed magnetic Navarro, G., Segure, J., Porteles, M., Perretta, Gomez, 2003. The microwave fields versus pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. J. syndrome: study in Spain. Electromag. Biol. Med. 22, 161–169. Sleep Res. 21, 620–629. Oberfeld, G., Navarro, A.E., Portoles, M., Maestu, C., Gomez-Perretta, C., 2004. The Schu¨ z, J., Waldemar, G., Olsen, J.H., Johansen, C., 2009. Risks for central nervous microwave syndrome: further aspects of a Spanish study, http://www.apdr. system diseases among mobile phone subscribers: a Danish retrospective info/electrocontaminacion/Documentos/Investigacion/ESTUDOS%20 cohort study. PLoS ONE 4 (2), e4389, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ EPIDEMIOLOXIDOS%20E%20ANTENAS/The%20Microwave%20Syndrome%20-% journal.pone.0004389. 20Further%20Aspects%20of%20a%20Spanish%20Study.pdf. Sheppard, A.R., Eisenbud, M., 1977. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Odaci, E., Bas, O., Kaplan, S., 2008. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz Fields of Extremely Low Frequency. New York University Press, New York. electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and So¨derqvist, F., Carlberg, M., Hardell, L., 2008. Use of wireless telephones and histopathological study. Brain Res. 1238, 224–249. self-reported health symptoms: a population-based study among Swedish Oftedal, G., Wile´n, J., Sandstro¨m, M., Mild, K.H., 2000. Symptoms experienced in adolescents aged 15–19 years. Environ. Health 7 (May), 18, http://dx.doi.org/ connection with mobile phone use. Occup. Med. (Lond.) 50, 237–245. 10.1186/1476-069X-7-18. Oto, R., Akdag, Z., Dasdag, S., Celik, Y., 1994. Evaluation of psychologic Soeiro-de-Souza, M.G., Otaduy, M.C., Dias, C.Z., Bio, D.S., Machado-Vieira, R., parameters in people occupationally exposed to radiofrequencies and Moreno, R.A., 2012. The impact of the CACNA1C risk allele on limbic microwave. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 8 (4), 71–74. structures and facial emotions recognition in bipolar disorder subjects and Pall, M.L., 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated healthy controls. J. Affect. Disord. 141, 94–101. calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. Sonmez, O.F., Odaci, E., Bas, O., Kaplan, S., 2010. Purkinje cell number decreases 17, 958–965. in the adult female rat cerebellum following exposure to 900 MHz Pall, M.L., 2014. Electromagnetic field activation of voltage-gated calcium electromagnetic field. Brain Res. 1356, 95–101. channels: role in therapeutic effects. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 33, 251. Tesli, M., Skatun, K.C., Ousdal, O.T., Brown, A.A., Thoresen, C., Agartz, I., Melle, I., Pall, M.L., 2015. Review: scientific evidence contradicts findings and Djurovic, S., Jensen, J., Andreassen, O.A., 2013. CACNA1C risk variant and assumptions of Canadian safety panel 6: microwaves act through voltage- amygdala activity in bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and healthy controls. gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts a non-thermal PLOS ONE 8 (2), e56970, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056970. levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency Thimm, M., Kircher, T., Kellermann, T., Markov, V., Krach, S., Jansen, A., Zerres, K., electromagnetic field action. Rev. Environ. Health 30, 99–116. Eggermann, T., Sto¨cker, T., Shah, N.J., No¨then, M.M., Rietschel, M., Witt, S.H., Pangopoulos, D.J., Johansson, O., Carlo, G.L., 2013. Evaluation of specific Mathiak, K., Krug, A., 2011. Effects of a CACNA1C genotype on attention absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. networks in healthy individuals. Psychol. Med. 41, 1551–1561. PLOS ONE 8 (6), e62663. Thome´e, S., Ha¨renstam, A., Hagberg, M., 2011. Mobile phone use and stress, Papageorgiou, C.C., Hountala, C.D., Maganioti, A.E., Kyprianou, M.A., Rabavilas, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults – a A.D., Papadimitriou, G.N., Capsalis, C.N., 2011. Effects of wi-fi signals on the prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 11 (January), 66, http:// p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-66. J. Integr. Neurosci. 10, 189–202. Tolgskaya, M.S., Gordon, Z.V., 1973. Pathological Effects of Radio Waves. (B. Pilla, A.A., 2012. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide Haigh, Trans.)Consultants Bureau, New York/London, pp. 146. signaling in challenged biological systems. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. Wagner, P., Ro¨schke, J., Mann, K., Hiller, W., Frank, C., 1998. Human sleep under 426, 330–333. the influence of pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: a Rag˘betli, MC1, Aydinliog˘lu, A., Koyun, N., Rag˘betli, C., Bektas, S., Ozdemir, S., polysomnographic study using standardized conditions. Bioelectromagnetics 2010. The effect of mobile phone on the number of Purkinje cells: a 19, 199–202. stereological study. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 86, 548–554. Waldmann-Selsam, C., Aschermann, C., Kern, M., 2009. Warning against adverse Raines, J.K., 1981, April. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human health effects from the operation of digital broadcast television stations Body: Observed Effects and Theories. National Aeronautics and Space (DVB-T): letter from 3 German physicians to the U.S. President and Adminstration, NASA CR 166661, Greenbelt, Maryland. Congress, http://www.stayontruth.com/ Sadcikova, M.N., 1974. Clinical manifestations of reactions to microwave warning-against-adverse-health-effects-digital/TV.php. radiation in various occupational groups. In: Czerski, P. (Ed.), Biological Walleczek, J., 1992. Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation. Proceedings of the the role of calcium signaling. FASEB J. 6, 3177–3185. International Symposium, Warsaw 13–18 October 1973. Polish Med Wheeler, D.B., Randall, A., Tsien, R.W., 1994. Roles of N-type and Q-type Publishers, Warsaw, pp. 261–267. channels in supporting hippocampal synaptic transmission. Science 264, Salama, O.E., Abou El Naga, R.M., 2004. Cellular phones: are they detrimental? J. 107–111. Egypt. Public Health Assoc. 79, 197–223. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161Outline 1. Abstract 2. Keywords 3. 1. Introduction 4. 2. Methods 5. 3.Results 6. 4. Conclusion 7. Acknowledgements 8. References Show full outline

Environmental Research Volume 165, August 2018, Pages 484-495

5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications☆

Author links open overlay panelCindy L.Russell Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016Get rights and content Abstract The popularity, widespread use and increasing dependency on wireless technologies has spawned a telecommunications industrial revolution with increasing public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network, however, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safetyissues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regards to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects. It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives.

Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man- made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated. This article will review relevant electromagnetic frequencies, exposure standards and current scientific literature on the health implications of 2G, 3G, 4G exposure, including some of the available literature on 5G frequencies. The question of what constitutes a public health issue will be raised, as well as the need for a precautionary approach in advancing new wireless technologies.  Previous article in issue  Next article in issue Keywords

Wireless technology Public health Radiofrequency radiation Environmental pollution

The author has read and approved the paper and it has not been published previously nor is it being considered by any other peer-reviewed journal. The author has no conflicts of interest. There was no financial support for the research, design, analysis, interpretation or writing of this article nor for the decision to publish this article.

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 5G technology: are the benefits worth the health risks?

smallcaps.com.au/5g-technology-benefits-vs-health-risks/

March 5, 2019

The US National Institutes of Health revealed that rats exposed to EMF radiation for nine hours a day over a two year period, developed unusual brain and heart tumours and sustained damage to their DNA.

The roll-out of fifth generation (5G) networks (alongside the suite of 5G-enabled mobile devices) has already begun with several countries keen to install the infrastructure required to usher in a new generation of connectivity.

The technology and telecommunication industries are actively preparing for a new era of wireless which they say will facilitate extensive economic opportunities and set the stage for a futuristic modern society that looks something akin to The Jetsons.

5G technology is being promoted as the vehicle that will deliver faster wireless speeds for mobile users and spur new innovation for internet-connected devices.

To put things into perspective, 4G is around ten times faster than 3G, where as 5G can send data as much as a thousand times faster than 4G.

1/6 This next generation of connectivity is the latest – and according to tech market analysts – the greatest wireless networking technology that will be used by all digital devices including phones, cars, laptops, and even smartwatches.

5G technology will be used to connect all electrical devices to the internet.

In a report titled 5G – Enabling the future economy, published by the Australian Government’s Department of Communication and the Arts, 5G will provide “the underlying architecture for the next wave of productivity and innovation across different sectors of the Australian economy”.

The report also claims that efficient roll-out of 5G and uptake of the services it supports has the potential to produce “far-reaching economic and social benefits and support growth of Australia’s digital economy”.

Bold claims indeed, for a bright future in an internet of things (IoT)-powered Australia that will ultimately sync up with the ongoing roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), and allowing “greater capabilities for the seamless delivery of services across high-speed mobile, fixed line and fixed wireless networks”.

Industry acclaim

According to Swedish telecom giant Ericsson, 5G subscriptions will reach 1.5 billion people by 2024 with coverage set to extend to over 40% of the world’s population.

However, the scope of the roll-out is far from equilateral, which means some countries and regions are set to receive 5G sooner than others.

According to research published by British consultancy firm Ovum, up to a third of North American mobile connections will be on a 5G network by 2023 with other countries such as Japan, South Korea and the UK also leading the pack when it comes to implementation.

2/6 In September last year, Japanese company NTT DOCOMO successfully achieved 25–27 Gbps download speeds in a collaborative 5G trial with Mitsubishi Electric.

The duo said its test could be used to develop a high-speed 5G network that works with vehicles and other devices as part of the IoT boom.

Bearing the brunt

To help usher in the next generation of 5G connectivity globally, responsibility has been passed over to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialised agency working as an offshoot from the United Nations, purposed for standardising information and communications technologies on a global scale.

The thinking is that for 5G networks to be compatible, efficient and seamless, they will need to be homogenous and work in accordance to an agreed standard.

The fear is that if multinationals are left to their own devices, we could see a repeat of what happened with AC sockets and mobile phone chargers – a diversity of technologies with different voltages and designs that eventually led to people needing a converter each time they go on holiday.

Governments from across the world have authorised the ITU to undertake the formal, international process to identify bands for 5G by 2020.

It has developed draft technical specifications for 5G including high data rates (1 Gbps for hotspots, 100 Mbps download and 50 Mbps upload for wide-area coverage). Higher rates of data transfer will also be supplemented by greater connectivity with ultra-low latency, estimated to be around 1 million connections per square kilometre.

Consumers are set to receive a jamboree of data-rich services with high-speed trains and planes to receive broadband-speed connections for the first time.

Meanwhile, businesses are looking forward to more commercial opportunities backed by “ultra- reliable” networking that enable mission-critical functions.

Potential health hazard

Despite the promise of abundant consumer benefits, with every new technological advance, there are always critics that question the validity and/or the rationale for futuristic new advances.

In the case of 5G, multiple sources claim that the technology carries negative health effects caused by cell tower radiation.

3/6 The critique is that cell towers will broadcast higher frequency signals to sustain the larger amount of data required by more intensive data transmissions. Higher-frequency transmissions mean signals dissipate quicker than 3G or 4G, and, therefore, more cell towers will be required.

5G providers have openly proposed to mount their transmitters on streetlight poles and traffic lights.

A 5G small cell tower.

Critics claim that the closer a person is located to antennas such as cell phone towers, small cells and mobile devices, the worse off they are.

The research into the impact of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) has proved that they can cause chronic ailments, but the extent and degree are still in question.

Research conducted at Paris Descartes University in 2014 found that sensitivity to EMFs can be objectively diagnosed by commercially available simple tests, and that EMFs cause inflammation, oxidative stress, autoimmune conditions, as well as disrupting the circadian rhythm of organic living beings.

Magda Havas, a biologist at Ontario’s Trent University, estimates that 3% of the population has severe reactions to EMFs and another 35% are compromised by a variety of negative externalities including poor sleep, depression, reduced concentration and higher anxiety.

More extreme symptoms can include heart trouble, dizziness, nausea and difficulties with movement, according to Ms Havas.

Superficial effects such as depression, anxiety and sleep may only be the tip of the iceberg.

In 2016, Armenian researchers found that a 5G microwave environment retarded the growth of single-cell organisms and could also increase resistance to antibiotics in some bacteria. 4/6 Some of the most worrisome research shows that high-frequency 5G waves can be absorbed into the skin and reach deeper into the body with sweat ducts acting as antennas.

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program, rats exposed to EMFs for nine hours a day over two years developed unusual brain and heart tumours and sustained damage to their DNA.

Researchers fear that by being able to penetrate deeper into human tissue, 5G waves can disrupt the nervous and endocrine systems. Prolonged exposure could potentially cause skin irritation and precipitate a variety of skin diseases, including cancers.

Outside of human effects, scientists have found that steady exposure to EMFs can disrupt birds and their nesting behaviour, disorient bees and damage plant and tree growth.

Farmable crops such as wheat have been shown to spark a “stress response”, altering its complex biochemistry. These effects can therefore impact natural habitats, the food chain and dozens of organisms that depend on them.

The health issues highlighted by various scientists have led the International Society of Doctors for the Environment with affiliated organisations in more than 25 countries, to call for suspending 5G’s spread until its effects are better understood.

Also, more than 200 EMF scientists in 41 countries have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which highlights myriad studies indicating health dangers associated with low levels of wireless radiation.

The scientists want 5G’s progress halted until these studies can be confirmed or proven wrong.

Economics meets health

5G’s high-frequency waves require small cell towers to be deployed closer to users with more antennas to expand its data-intensive coverage.

Research is currently ongoing with the time required to establish a definitive conclusion estimated at around 20 years or more.

Telecom companies simply cannot wait that long and have lobbied legislators to approve 5G networks well before research has been done. Or so the critics say.

Some of the more ardent critics are suggesting that 5G will not only pose health risks but even more worryingly, could be setting the stage for an Orwellian control grid that enables more Big Brother-style spying and monitoring of society.

5G will stitch together every building, appliance, retailer, and customer via the Internet. Every car will be exchanging data with every other vehicle in its neighbourhood, not to mention the computers that will control traffic flow. 5/6 If such technology is used nefariously, the potential danger to society as a whole could extend far beyond health effects.

Trash or treasure

The biggest proponents of 5G technology (telecommunication companies and governments) claim that its adoption will usher in lightning-fast wireless internet speeds and increased capacity to deal with the growth in internet devices and user demand for bandwidth.

The new standard has the potential to bring services such as virtual reality to mobile users, forge a path for driverless cars to market and enable the development of so-called “smart cities,” which require growing reams of data to manage their sprawling infrastructure.

Further down the track, and assuming advances in the medical industry keep up, there’s even the prospect that higher-bandwidth networks will enable doctors to remotely perform surgeries by controlling robotic arms.

Rural areas could also benefit and see internet-powered services for the first time.

However, there is a clear and present danger that 5G networks could compromise society by making all devices more hackable and the consequences even more devastating if such hacks occur – simply because everything is more connected and integrated.

There is also the possible risk of radiation causing harm with critics adamant that signal radiation will follow the path of cigarettes – first thought of as a safe consumer product, only to prove harmful and carcinogenic after further investigation and research.

With the jury still out on the safety, efficacy or even the necessity of 5G networks, the world’s governments have declared the technology safe while telecommunication companies are readying their market assault with a menu of 5G-powered services set to hit store shelves in a region near you.

6/6 Kelly Clancy

From: Mike Seitler Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 1:44 AM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: 5G Wireless Rollout in Moraga Attachments: US Cities Example UO's.docx; Health Risks of Cell Towers- SaferEMR.docx; NIH Study - High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats.pdf; International_EMF_Scientist- Appeal.pdf; IAFF Letter on Cell Towers.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Moraga Planning Commission and Moraga Town Council Representatives,

My name is Mike Seitler and I have lived in Moraga for the past ten years. I own a home in the Rheem Valley Manor area and live there with my wife and two young children, ages nine and seven. We love Moraga and see it as a very special and unique place – one that frankly we never imagined we could find. I am writing to you today because I fear that the impending 5G wireless service rollout in Moraga could have a whole range of detrimental effects on the quality of life in this town. I very recently learned that the town was subject to a new FCC order which further limits our ability to control the rollout of 5G wireless service in Moraga. I understand that one of the few areas we have control over is aesthetic criteria which the wireless companies must abide by, but that criteria has to be codified by 4/15/2019. I understand that town staff are working on these criteria and that they will be discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting on 4/8/2019 and the Town Council meeting on 4/10/2019. It is also my understanding that to be part of the written record presented to the Town Council; I must send my comments by this evening. I truly wish there had been much greater publicity of all these issues and deadlines. This would have allowed for fuller public discussion and research in advance of these meetings/deadlines. Most of my neighbors are completely unaware of these issues. I have communicated with some of my neighbors but due to the fact that it is the Spring Break period for our schools, most are away or occupied. I feel that the installation of potentially hundreds of cell towers in Moraga will have a whole series of negative effects on our quality of life. Attached to this email is a document detailing some of the research that other Moraga residents have assembled. In light of only learning about these issues a few days ago, and being out of town for several of those days, my own research has been limited. Websites and sources are listed in the document. I plan to do more thorough research in the coming days but wanted to get this information included in the record of material sent to the Town Council for consideration. I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies I might include based on the limited amount of time I have had to research. Below I have provided a rough summary of the issues and of the steps we should take to help ensure the quality of life in Moraga. Please email me if there is a specific area for which you want more information, clarification or research.

Exposure Standards Standards for Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure to humans is based on guidelines issued in 1991 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This is a professional association made up of technology and engineering professionals dedicated to the advancement of technology. No healthcare policy professionals or medical professionals were involved in the establishment of these criteria. The criteria were revised somewhat 1 in 1996 but have remained the same since that time. Recently Senator Blumenthal and Congressman Eshoo have questioned the FCC about the safety of these standards and demanded further examination. Current standards are based on the thermal effect of RF energy ‐‐ the degree to which the energy emitted from a wireless facility will increase skin temperature – not how the energy will affect any other bodily processes.

Potential Impacts on Health The Telecommunications Act of 1996 – remarkably ‐‐ prohibits cities from restricting cell towers based on possible health effects to humans. If a city cites this as a concern then the cell company can sue the city. One has to ask why the telecom industry would have such a provision legislated if the safety of RF energy transmissions was verified in multiple studies. It’s because it is not. Studies conducted by the industry show that the technology is safe but those conducted by other entities consistently do not. The World Health Organization classified RF electromagnetic fields from any source as a Group 2B, possible carcinogenic to humans. Multiple other studies have found that levels of RF energy less than or equal to that associated with 5G transmissions can be linked to brain cancer, lymphoma, childhood leukemia, headaches, neurologic changes, decreased memory, learning disabilities and damage to eye cells. See attachments for more details. Perhaps we cannot reject the 5G rollout based on general health considerations for the population, but what about its effect on specific devices that affect health? Have there been adequate studies to determine the effect of these transmissions on medical devices (i.e. telemetry devices, pacemakers, etc.) Should we not ask the telecom industry for an independent study that guarantees that medical devices will not be affected? We have two assisted living facilities in Moraga, more coming under the specific plan and one long term rehabilitation facility. Isn’t it our duty to insure that we protect these vulnerable members of our community? The town may face some civil liability if we allow for the implementation of 5G without ensuring the safety of our oldest most vulnerable residents Perhaps we cannot reject the 5G rollout based on general health considerations for the population, but what about our obligations under other various Federal statutes. The town has to be complaint with the America s With Disabilities Act. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a hyper sensitivity to electromagnetic fields resulting in a range of debilitating symptoms. Individuals suffering from EMS may be protected under the ADA. We need a detailed plan from the wireless providers regarding how they intend to protect residents who have EMS. We also need a detailed plan from the town to assess who in Moraga has EMS in advance of any new towers being placed in Moraga. Again, the town’s lack of ability to accommodate an ADA protected class could expose the town to future civil liability. Perhaps we cannot reject the 5G rollout based on general health considerations for the population, but what about its effects on the health of wildlife. We should request an Environmental Impact Statement on the affects this will have on some of the native wildlife.

Fire Risk My understanding is that some of the recent fires in CA were caused by “pole overloading,” or placing too many power draws on one utility pole. I don’t know the rate at which these poles are inspected to ensure safety. My understanding is that once one 5G carrier is allowed to establish towers in Moraga, the other carriers are entitled to do so as well. This may result in many towers per square mile. The quantity of new powered utility poles and the overloading of existing poles could present a potential fire hazard. We need an independent study on how these towers will affect our energy infrastructure and what risk they pose for starting fires in this fire‐prone area. Property Value Due to the large number of cell towers required to provide 5G access, a significant number of Moraga residents could see 5G cell towers located in close proximity to their homes. This could result in a cumulative

2 decrease in property values in the millions of dollars. Not only does this hurt residents but it lowers potential real estate tax revenue. We need an independent study to determine the degree to which a cell tower in front of a piece of property will reduce its value. The study should also estimate the cumulative drop in real estate prices for the entire town given the projected number of new cell towers.

Other Options Moraga should consider engaging with contractors that could wire the town with fiber optic cables. Once this is done, 5G carriers will find it less profitable to put their cell towers here. Conversely, once we are littered with 5G towers, it is unlikely that a company will find it financially attractive to wire the town with fiber optic cable. Let’s move forward aggressively on exploring this issue before work starts on the installation of 5G towers.

Conclusion It’s offensive that bureaucrats in Washington and on K Street are dictating to us, here in Moraga, what we can and cannot do on a very personal local matter. That is why dozens of towns have resisted this oppressive and offensive overreach of the Federal government. Towns like Danville, Orinda, Santa Cruz and others have stood up against this invasion of our local rights. See: http://mystreetmychoice.com/ We can too! In spite of the vast amount of data indicating a potential harm to the population, we cannot reject this 5G rollout based on that data, but we can demand the following:

o An independent study that guarantees that medical devices will not be affected by 5G transmissions, thereby assuring the safety of some of our most vulnerable and cherished residents, the elderly. o A detailed plan from the telecom companies about how they intend to protect people with EMS, a potential ADA protected group. o A detailed plan from the town about how and when they intend to survey all Moraga residents to determine who has EMS before any equipment is installed. o An Environmental Impact Statement on the affects this will have on some of the native wildlife. o An independent study on how these towers will affect our energy infrastructure and what risk they pose for starting fires in this fire‐prone area. o An independent study to determine the degree to which a cell tower in front of a piece of property will reduce its value. o A study by the town on the costs and viability of getting fiber optic cables installed. o The following changes should be made to Moraga Municipal Code Sec. 8.144.030 (I): . “Antennas and equipment buildings” should be changed to “Wireless Communication Facilities, Antennas, Monopoles and Related Equipment…” . “…three hundred (300) feet from a residential structure…” should be changed to “…one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from a residential structure, school, childcare facility, senior living facility, medical facility, park or public open space…” o Lastly, all work on 5G implementation should be restricted until these studies are completed to the Town Council’s satisfaction.

I thank you all for your service to this wonderful town and for the opportunity to voice my opinions. It is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

3 Respectfully,

Mike Seitler

4 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

Use this QR code to view the newest version of this (https://www.niehs.nih.gov) document

High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats News Release Archive - New Contact Information

For more information about this archival news release, please contact Christine Flowers, Director, Oce of Communications & Public Liaison at (919) 541-3665.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Virginia Guidry, NIEHS Thursday, November 1, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EDT 919-541-1993

National Toxicology Program releases nal reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear Audio Recording of Telephone Press evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency Conference October 31, 2018 radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to nal reports  Transcript (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/) released today. There was (/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/1 1012018transcript_508.pdf) also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of (151KB) exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were NTP Cell Phone Study Page  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphon associated with exposure to RFR. The nal reports represent the es/index.html)

consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientic experts who Fact Sheet reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in (/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofreq uency_radiation_studies_508.pdf) February  (1MB)

Final Rat Study Report (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp- temp/tr595_508.pdf)

Final Mouse Study Report (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp- temp/tr596_508.pdf)

(https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radiofrequency-radiation-linked-tumor-activity-male-rats).

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 1/3 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specic local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said Bucher.

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health eects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

“A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,” said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected nding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. “This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats,” Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes o, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been dened yet. From what we currently understand, it likely diers dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to evaluate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential eects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 2/3 4/1/2019 High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health eects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential eects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html) to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

Clear evidence (highest)

Some evidence

Equivocal evidence

No evidence (lowest)

About the National Toxicology Program (NTP): NTP is a federal, interagency program headquartered at NIEHS, whose goal is to safeguard the public by identifying substances in the environment that may aect human health. For more information about NTP and its programs, visit ̀ ntp.niehs.nih.gov  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov).

About the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS): NIEHS supports research to understand the eects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists (www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/newslist/index.cfm) to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov  (https://www.nih.gov).

NIH...Turning Discovery Into Health®

Previous Release Next Release Genetics and Pollution Drive Severity of Asthma Soy Formula Feeding During Infancy Associated With Symptoms Severe Menstrual Pain in Adulthood

File Assistance: Downloads for viewing les

Adobe Reader   (https://get.adobe.com/reader/)

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm 3/3 https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html Scientific and policy developments regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and other wireless technology

Sunday, March 10, 2019 Cell Tower Health Effects Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the hundreds of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property. Localities need to organize and change the Federal law to protect public health and wildlife from exposure to microwave radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations.

As of March 10, 2019, www.antennasearch.com, an industry website, reports 712,000 cell towers and 1.98 million cell antennas in the U.S. We cannot verify the accuracy of these data because the FCC only collects data on certain types of cell towers.

Following are some resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation. I will occasionally update this page. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing near cell towers

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.

Abstract

Radiofrequency radiations (RFRs) emitted by mobile phone base stations have raised concerns on its adverse impact on humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Therefore, the present study was envisaged to evaluate the effect of RFR on the DNA damage and antioxidant status in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations and comparing it with healthy controls.

The study groups were matched on various demographic data including age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use.

The RF power density of the exposed individuals was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group. The HPBLs were cultured and the DNA damage was assessed by cytokinesis blocked micronucleus (MN) assay in the binucleate lymphocytes. The analyses of data from the exposed group (n = 40), residing within a perimeter of 80 meters of mobile base stations, showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei (MN) when compared to the control group, residing 300 meters away from the mobile base station/s.

The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669

My note

All of the recorded RFR power density values in this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission’s maximum permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population. These limits are are 6,000 mW/m2 [milliwatts per square meter] for 900 MHz and 10,000 mW/m2 for 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. In contrast, the highest recorded value in this study was 7.52 mW/m2 of RFR. The “exposed individuals” who resided within 80 meters of a cell antenna received an average of 5.00 mW/m2 of RFR in their bedrooms.

Excerpts

RFR may change the fidelity of DNA as the increased incidence of cancer has been reported among those residing near mobile phone base stations (Abdel-Rassonl et al., 2007; Bortkiewicz et al., 2004; Cherry, 2000; Eger et al., 2004; Hardell et al., 1999; Hutter et al., 2006; Wolf and Wolf, 2004). RFR emitted frommobile base stations is also reported to increase the DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes of mobile phone users and individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile base station/s (Gandhi and Anita, 2005; Gandhi et al., 2014). Exposure of human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to RFR (1800 MHz, SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg) has been reported to induce DNA single- and double-strands breaks (Diem et al., 2005). Irreversible DNA damage was also reported in cultured human lens epithelial cells exposed to microwave generated by mobile phones (Sun et al., 2006). The adverse health effects of RFR are still debatable as many studies indicated above have found a positive correlation between the DNA damage and RFR exposure; however, several studies reported no significant effect of RFR on DNA strand breaks and micronuclei formation in different study systems (Li et al., 2001; Tice et al., 2002; McNamee et al., 2003;Maes et al., 2006). The potential genotoxicity of RFR emitted by mobile phone base stations can be determined by micronucleus (MN) assay, which is an effective tool to evaluate the genotoxic or clastogenic effects of physical and chemical agents. This technique has also been used to quantify the frequencies of radiation-induced MN in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) (Fenech and Morley, 1985; Jagetia and Venkatesha, 2005; Prosser et al., 1988; Yildirim et al., 2010).

Six mobile phone base stations, operating in the frequency range of 900 MHz (N = 2) and1800MHz (N = 4), erected in the thickly populated areas of Aizawl city were selected for the present study… The power output of all the base stations is 20 W, with their primary beam emitting radiation at an angle of 20°. Power density measurements (using HF-60105V4, Germany) were carried out in the bedroom of each participant where they spent most of the time and hence have the longest constant level of electromagnetic field exposure. Power density measurement was carried out three times (morning, midday and evening), and the average was calculated for each residence around each base station. The main purpose of the measurement of power density was to ensure that RFR emission from each site did not exceed the safe public limits and to determine any difference in power density between selected households that were close to (within 80 m) and far (>300 m) from the mobile phone base stations. The safety limits for public exposure from mobile phone base stations are 0.45 W/m2 for 900 MHz and 0.92 W/m2 for 1800 MHz frequency as per Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi guidelines (DoT, 2012).

… some residences are located horizontally with the top of the towers from which RFR are emitted, making it possible to get an exposure at a short distance of 1–20 m, despite being erected on the rooftop or in the ground. A minimum of two individuals were sampled from each household and at least five individuals were sampled around each mobile base station. Individuals sampled around each base station were matched for their age and gender (Table 1). The exposed group consisted of 40 healthy individuals who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of being above 18 years of age and residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations (within 80 m radius). The control group comprised of 40 healthy individuals matched for age and gender who had been living at least 300 m away from any mobile phone base stations…. Sampling was also done only from those residences who did not use microwave oven for cooking, Wifi devices and any other major source of electromagnetic field as they are known to cause adverse effects (Atasoy et al., 2013; Avendaño et al., 2012).

The groups matched for most of the demographic data such as age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, mobile phone usage, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use (Table 2). A highly significant variation (p < 0.0001) was observed for the distance of household from the base station (40.10 ± 3.02 vs. 403.17 ± 7.98 in m) between exposed and control groups.

The RF power density of the exposed group (2.80–7.52 mW/m2; average 5.002 ± 0.182 mW/ m2) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control group (0.014–0.065 mW/m2; average 0.035 ± 0.002 mW/m2). The highest power density was recorded at a distance of 1–20 m (6.44 ± 0.31 mW/m2), which is significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than those at a distance of 21–40 m (4.79 ± 0.33), 41– 60 m (4.48 ± 0.22) and 61–80 m (4.61 ± 0.10).

The highest measured power density was 7.52mW/m2. Most of the measured values close to base stations (Table 1) are higher than that of the safe limits recommended by Bioinitiative Report 2012 (0.5mW/m2), Salzburg resolution 2000 (1 mW/m2) and EU (STOA) 2001 (0.1 mW/m2). However, all the recorded values were well below the current ICNIRP safe level (4700 mW/m2) and the current Indian Standard (450 mW/m2).

The exact mechanism of action of RFR in micronuclei induction and reduced antioxidant status is not apparent. The possible putative mechanism of generation of DNA damage may be the production of endogenous free radicals due to continuous exposure. RFR has been reported to produce different free radicals earlier (Avci et al., 2009; Burlaka et al., 2013; Barcal et al., 2014; Kazemi et al., 2015). Cells possess a number of compensatory mechanisms to deal with ROS and its effects. Among these are the induction of antioxidant proteins such as GSH, SOD and CAT. Enzymatic antioxidant systems function by direct or sequential removal of ROS, thereby terminating their activities. An imbalance between the oxidative forces and antioxidant defense systems causes oxidative injury, which has been implicated in various diseases, such as cancer, neurological disorders, atherosclerosis, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, asthma, hypertension and ischemia (Andreadis et al., 2003; Comhair et al., 2005; Dhalla et al., 2000; Finkel and Holbrook, 2000; Kasparova et al., 2005; Sayre et al., 2001; Sohal et al., 2002). Because of the significant decrease in endogenous antioxidants and increased LOO among the exposed group, the extra burden of free radicals is unlikely to get neutralized, and these surplus ROS may react with important cellular macromolecules including DNA forming either DNA adducts or stand breaks, which may be later expressed as micronuclei once the cell decides to divide. The decline in the antioxidant status may be also due to the suppressed activity of Nrf2 transcription factor which is involved in maintaining the antioxidant status in the cells.

The present study has reported that [radiofrequency radiation] increased the frequency of [micronuclei] and [lipid peroxidation] and reduced [glutathione] contents, [catalase] and [superoxide dismutase] activities in the plasma of the exposed individuals. The induction of [micronuclei] may be due to the increase in free-radical production. The present study demonstrated that staying near the mobile base stations and continuous use of mobile phones damage the DNA, and it may have an adverse effect in the long run. The persistence of DNA unrepaired damage leads to genomic instability which may lead to several health disorders including the induction of cancer.

--

Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395 (2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018.

Open Access Paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys

Abstract

The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed.

Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.

The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted.

Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines.

Excerpts

In lieu of building new cell towers, some municipalities are licensing public utility poles throughout urban areas for Wi-Fi antennas that allow wireless Internet access. These systems can require hundreds of antennas in close proximity to the population with some exposures at a lateral height where second- and third-story windows face antennas. Most of these systems are categorically excluded from regulation by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or oversight by government agencies because they operate below a certain power density threshold. However, power density is not the only factor determining biological effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR).

An aesthetic emphasis is often the only perceived control of a municipality, particularly in countries like America where there is an overriding federal preemption that precludes taking the “environmental effects” of RFR into consideration in cell tower siting as stipulated in Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (USFCC 1996). Citizen resistance, however, is most often based on health concerns regarding the safety of RFR exposures to those who live near the infrastructure. Many citizens, especially those who claim to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, state they would rather know where the antennas are and that hiding them greatly complicates society’s ability to monitor for safety.

Industry representatives try to reassure communities that facilities are many orders of magnitude below what is allowed for exposure by standards-setting boards and studies bear that out (Cooper et al. 2006; Henderson and Bangay 2006; Bornkessel et al. 2007). These include standards by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) used throughout Europe, Canada, and elsewhere (ICNIRP 1998). The standards currently adopted by the U.S. FCC, which uses a two-tiered system of recommendations put out by the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) for civilian exposures (referred to as uncontrolled environments), and the International Electricians and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for professional exposures (referred to as controlled environments) (U.S. FCC 1997). The U.S. may eventually adopt standards closer to ICNIRP. The current U.S. standards are more protective than ICNIRP’s in some frequency ranges so any harmonization toward the ICNIRP standards will make the U.S. limits more lenient.

All of the standards currently in place are based on RFRs ability to heat tissue, called thermal effects. A longstanding criticism, going back to the 1950s (Levitt 1995), is that such acute heating effects do not take potentially more subtle non-thermal effects into consideration. And based on the number of citizens who have tried to stop cell towers from being installed in their neighborhoods, laypeople in many countries do not find adherence to existing standards valid in addressing health concerns. Therefore, infrastructure siting does not have the confidence of the public (Levitt 1998).

The intensity of RFR decreases rapidly with the distance from the emitting source; therefore, exposure to RFR from transmission towers is often of low intensity depending on one’s proximity. But intensity is not the only factor. Living near a facility will involve long-duration exposures, sometimes for years, at many hours per day. People working at home or the infirm can experience low-level 24 h exposures. Nighttimes alone will create 8 hour continuous exposures. The current standards for both ICNIRP, IEEE and the NCRP (adopted by the U.S. FCC) are for whole-body exposures averaged over a short duration (minutes) and are based on results from short-term exposure studies, not for long-term, low-level exposures such as those experienced by people living or working near transmitting facilities. For such populations, these can be involuntary exposures, unlike cell phones where user choice is involved.

The U.S. FCC has issued guidelines for both power density and SARs. For power density, the U.S. guidelines are between 0.2–1.0 mW/cm2….

At 100–200 ft (about 30–60 meters) from a cell phone base station, a person can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2)….

For the purposes of this paper, we will define low-intensity exposure to RFR of power density of 0.001 mW/cm2

Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensities comparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft ( 60–150 m) of a cell tower, including effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures and animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Effects reported include: genetic, growth, ∼ and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancer risk….

Ten years ago, there were only about a dozen studies reporting such low-intensity effects; currently, there are more than 60. This body of work cannot be ignored. These are important findings with implications for anyone living or working near a transmitting facility. However, again, most of the studies in the list are on short-term (minutes to hours) exposure to low-intensity RFR. Long-term exposure studies are sparse. In addition, we do not know if all of these reported effects occur in humans exposed to low-intensity RFR, or whether the reported effects are health hazards. Biological effects do not automatically mean adverse health effects, plus many biological effects are reversible. However, it is clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Clearly, more needs to be learned before a presumption of safety can continue to be made regarding placement of antenna arrays near the population, as is the case today.

… The previously mentioned studies show that RFR can produce effects at much lower intensities after test animals are repeatedly exposed. This may have implications for people exposed to RFR from transmission towers for long periods of time.

… The conclusion from this body of work is that effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure.

Since most studies with RFR are short-term exposure studies, it is not valid to use their results to set guidelines for long-term exposures, such as in populations living or working near cell phone base stations.

Numerous biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term, low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly from myriad wireless products and services.

People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic “microwave sickness syndrome,” also known as “radiofrequency radiation sickness.” First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others. The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973).

The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards setting. That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate the works at all.... In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations. The U.S. standards should not be “harmonized” toward more lenient allowances. The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today. Exposure of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission towers should be kept to a minimum and should follow the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle. Some scientists, organizations, and local governments recommend very low exposure levels — so low, in fact, that many wireless industries claim they cannot function without many more antennas in a given area. However, a denser infrastructure may be impossible to attain because of citizen unwillingness to live in proximity to so many antennas. In general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2, which is in line with Salzburg, Austria’s indoor exposure value for GSM cell base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter 2009). In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF), also made this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (Bioinitiative Report 2007).

Citizens and municipalities often ask for firm setbacks from towers to guarantee safety. There are many variables involved with safer tower siting — such as how many providers are co-located, at what frequencies they operate, the tower’s height, surrounding topographical characteristics, the presence of metal objects, and others. Hard and fast setbacks are difficult to recommend in all circumstances. Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to avoid exposure of the public to unnecessary high levels of RFR. As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft ( 500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft ( 50 m). Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that distance, despite the many variables involved. ∼ ∼ However, with new technologies now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce the energy required for effective wireless communication.

In addition, regular RFR monitoring of base stations should be considered….

Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from cell towers Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263-7.

Abstract

Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Review Papers Bhattacharya, R, Roy, R. Impacts of communication towers on avians: A review. IJECT. 4(1): 137- 139. 2013. http://www.iject.org/vol4/spl1/c0046.pdf

Chronic Exposure Web Site. Research on mobile base stations and their impact on health. http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html

Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jul-Sep;16(3):263- 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations-Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 16(2- 3):123-135. 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261451

Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Review. 18:369–395. 2010. . http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-018?src=recsys Manville, A. A briefing memorandum: What we know, can infer, and don’t yet know about impacts from thermal and non-thermal non-ionizing radiation to birds and other wildlife — for public release. July 14, 2016. http://bit.ly/savewildlifeRFR

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem--a review. Biology and Medicine. 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017477145

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation of mobile telephony devices. Experimental Oncology. 32(2):54-60. 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693976

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology. 33(2):62-70. 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

Yakymenko I., Tsybulin O., Sidorik E. Henshel D., Krylenko O., Krylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biologic activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 7:1-16. 2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230

Recent Studies (Updated 12/5/2017)

Al-Quzwini O, Al-Taee H, Al-Shaikh S. Male fertility and its association with occupational and mobile phone towers hazards: An analytic study. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. Avail. online Apr 8, 2016. http://bit.ly/1SRUWWs

Baliatsas C, van Kamp I, Bolte J, Kelfkens G, van Dijk C, Spreeuwenberg P, Hooiveld M, Lebret E, Yzermans J. Clinically defined non-specific symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: A retrospective before-after study. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Sep 15;565:714- 20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219506

Bienkowski P, Zubrzak B. Electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base station - variability analysis. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Sep;34(3):257-61. http://1.usa.gov/1TEXygr

Black B, Granja-Vazquez R, Johnston BR, Jones E, Romero-Ortega M (2016) Anthropogenic Radio- Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Elicit Neuropathic Pain in an Amputation Model. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0144268. http://bit.ly/1R7g4vN

Cammaerts MC, Johansson O. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137. http://bit.ly/EMRcress

Eskander EF, Estefan SF, Abd-Rabou AA. How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles? Clinical Biochemistry, Volume 45, Issues 1–2. 2012, Pages 157- 161. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021

Gandhi G, Kaur G, Nisar U. A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 9:1- 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006864

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya, Aggarwal NK, Kumar R, Gupta R. Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015 Aug 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26238667

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Priya K, Aggarwal NK, Gupta R. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers. Mol Cell Biochem. 2017 Aug 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28819931

Hardell L, Koppel T, Carlberg M, Ahonen M, Hedendahl L. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology. Published online Aug 12, 2016. Open access: http://bit.ly/2aI93Ut

Marinescu I, Poparlan C. Assessment of GSM HF-Radiation impact levels within the residential area of Craiova (Romania) city. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32:177-183. 2016. http://bit.ly/28Q6EEy

Martens AL, Slottje P, Timmermans DR, Kromhout H, Reedijk M, Vermeulen RC, Smid T. Modeled and Perceived Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields From Mobile-Phone Base Stations and the Development of Symptoms Over Time in a General Population Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 7:1- 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398549

Meo SA, Alsubaie Y, Almubarak Z, Almutawa H, AlQasem Y, Hasanato RM. Association of Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMFR) Generated by Mobile Phone Base Stations with Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 13;12(11):14519-14528. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14519

Sagar S, Dongus S, Schoeni A, Roser K, Eeftens M, Struchen B, Foerster M, Meier N, Adem S, Röösli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28766560

Singh K, Nagaraj A, Yousuf A, Ganta S, Pareek S, Vishnani P. Effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on general health and salivary function. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2016;6:54-9. http://bit.ly/1USYGNs

Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Aug 20;572:554- 569. http://bit.ly/2cbXNBy

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1- 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669

Resources Best Best & Krieger. Letter to EMF Safety Network: Local Authority Over Wireless Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. Apr 24, 2018. http://bit.ly/BBKletter04242018

Campanelli & Associates, P.C. Cell tower lawyers. http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/

Center for Municipal Solutions. Excellent resource re: regulation of cell towers & wireless facilities. http://bit.ly/1GX4mPY

Karish G, Barket E (Best Best & Krieger). Issues of Local Control and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Presented at League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Spring Conference, May 3, 2018. 22 pp. http://bit.ly/wirelesscontrol

League of Minnesota Cities. Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. Nov 4, 2016. http://bit.ly/2k5PQz0

San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) http://www.antennafreeunion.org/neighborhoodaction.htm

News

RCR Wireless News. Appeals Court rules that California cities have the right to block small cell based on aesthetic concerns. Sep 16, 2016. http://bit.ly/2cE9GhN

Rouhan Sharma. A Towering Problem. Infrastructure Today, Feb 2016. http://bit.ly/1QcHSxO

Special Correspondent. "Radiation levels of mobile towers should be cut." The Hindu. Feb 7, 2016. http://bit.ly/1Pt5Sck "Stating that the current level of radiation (electromagnetic field, EMF) emitted by mobile phone towers was still high, Girish Kumar, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, on Saturday, urged the Centre to reduce the radiation level further. The mobile tower radiation had been reduced [in India] from 45,000 milliwatt per square metre to 450 milliwatt a few years ago. It should be reduced to 10 milliwatt, he said ...." Note: The FCC allows the American general public to be exposed from 5,800 milliwatts per square meter to 10,000 milliwatts per square meter depending on the frequency. Lydia Beyoud. Not All ‘Small Cells' Created Equal, Say Municipalities in Wireless Siting Rules Suit. Bloomberg BNA. Apr 27, 2015. http://www.bna.com/not-small-cells-n17179925917/ "... the number of small cell and DAS installations is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. As many as 37 million small cell installations could be in place by 2017, and up to 16 million distributed antenna system (DAS) nodes could be deployed by 2018, according to the FCC."

Joel Moskowitz. Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC. Mar 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Ryan Knutson. Cellphone Boom Spurs Antenna-Safety Worries. Wall Street Journal, Oct 2, 2014. http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055 Occupational Medicine

Login | Contact Us

IAFF FireFighters

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 (1), is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular antennae, and examine the health status of the fire fighters as a function of their assignment in exposed or unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other metabolic effects observed in preliminary studies. It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecommunications industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from exposure to RF/MW radiation unless the intensity of the radiation is sufficient to heat body tissue. However, it is important to note that these positions are based on non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted from wireless telecommunications base stations. Furthermore, most studies that are the basis of this position are at least five years old and generally look at the safety of the phone itself. IAFF members are concerned about the effects of living directly under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daily basis. There are established biological effects from exposure to low-level RF/MW radiation. Such biological effects are recognized as markers of adverse health effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals for example. The IAFF’s efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological effects and a health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due to the siting of cell phone antennas and base stations at fire stations and facilities where they work.

Background Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain. Accordingly, should we allow exposure of our fire fighters and emergency medical personnel to this radiation to continue for the next twenty years when there is ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF/MW health effects? While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF/MW exposure (just like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently investigating the health hazards of low intensity RF/MW exposure. Low intensity RF/MW exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body. Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human carcinogens." (2) In March 2002 The International Association on Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization also assigned this designation to ELF/EMF in Volume 80 of its IARC Monographs on the http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. (3) Fixed antennas used for wireless telecommunications are referred to as cellular base stations, cell stations, PCS ("Personal Communications Service") stations or telephone transmission towers. These base stations consist of antennas and electronic equipment. Because the antennas need to be high in the air, they are often located on towers, poles, water tanks, or rooftops. Typical heights for freestanding base station towers are 50-200 feet. Some base stations use antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, that are referred to as "omni-directional" antennas. These types of antennas are usually found in rural areas. In urban and suburban areas, wireless providers now more commonly use panel or sector antennas for their base stations. These antennas consist of rectangular panels, about 1 by 4 feet in dimension. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three antennas each. One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to wireless phones, and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from wireless phones. At any base station site, the amount of RF/MW radiation produced depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) per antenna and the power of each transmitter. Typically, 21 channels per antenna sector are available. For a typical cell site using sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters. When omni-directional antennas are used, a cellular base station could theoretically use up to 96 transmitters. Base stations used for PCS communications generally require fewer transmitters than those used for cellular radio transmissions, since PCS carriers usually have a higher density of base station antenna sites. The electromagnetic RF/MW radiation transmitted from base station antennas travel toward the horizon in relatively narrow paths. The individual pattern for a single array of sector antennas is wedge-shaped, like a piece of pie. Cellular and PCS base stations in the United States are required to comply with limits for exposure recommended by expert organizations and endorsed by government agencies responsible for health and safety. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF/MW radiation levels on that roof or on others near by would be greater than those typically encountered on the ground. The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of “safe RF/MW radiation exposure is harmless” rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a "thermal effect." (4) There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it. Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:

Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells (5) A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (6) Changes in tumor growth in rats (7) An increased number of tumors in rats (8) Increased single- and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material (9) 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF (10) More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF (11) Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep (12) Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure (13) Neurologic changes (14) including:

Changes in the blood-brain-barrier (15) Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) (16) Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) (17) Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) (18) Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) (19) Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases) (20)

Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children (21) Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" (22) (23)

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Increased blood pressure in healthy men Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications (24)

Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include:

The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children." (25) The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (26) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (27) The Swedish Work Environmental Fund (28) The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (29) The European Commission (EC) (30) New Zealand's Ministry of Health (31) National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (32) Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) (33) The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34) European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (35) The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) (36) The United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (37) The EMF-Team Finland's Helsinki Appeal 2005 (38) Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established. The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe." (39) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) RF/MW safety standards protect only against thermal effects. (40) Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF/MW radiation. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity RF/MW exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze. (41) Internationally, researchers and physicians have issued statements that biological effects from low-intensity RF/MW radiation exposure are scientifically established:

· The 1998 Vienna-EMF Resolution (42) · The 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations (43) · The 2002 Catania Resolution (44) · The 2002 Freiburger Appeal (45) · The 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (46) · The 2004 Second Annual Report from Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks (47) · (48)Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB (The UK's National Radiological Protection Board) The county of Palm Beach, Florida, the City of Los Angeles, California, and the country of New Zealand have all prohibited cell phone base stations and antennas near schools due to safety concerns. The British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils [BCCPAC] passed a resolution in 2003 banning cellular antennae from schools and school grounds. This organization is comparable to the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) in the United States. The resolution was directed to B.C. Ministry of Education, B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development, B.C. School Trustees Association, and B.C. Association of Municipalities.

US Government Information In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used safety guidelines for RF/MW radiation environmental exposure since 1985. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation are derived from the recommendations of two organizations,

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In both cases, the recommendations were developed by scientific and engineering experts drawn from industry, government, and academia after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to the biological effects of RF/MW radiation. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure from certain products such as hand-held wireless telephones. Currently, the World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF/MW radiation safety standards. In order to affirm conformity to standards regarding heating of tissue, measurements are time averaged over 0.1 hours [6 minutes]. This method eliminates any spikes in the readings. Computer power bars have surge protectors to prevent damage to computers. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel do not! The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold level of exposure at which harmful biological thermal effects due to tissue heating may occur. Exposure guidelines in terms of field strength, power density and localized SAR were then derived from this threshold value. In addition, the NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP guidelines vary depending on the frequency of the RF/MW radiation exposure. This is due to the finding that whole-body human absorption of RF/MW radiation varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF/MW energy most efficiently. For products that only expose part of the body, such as wireless phones, exposure limits in terms of SAR only are specified. Similarly, the exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength, and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The specific values can be found in two FCC bulletins, OET Bulletins 56 and 65. OET Bulletin 56, “Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” was designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions. It includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation. Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 56 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bulletin%2056%20-%20EMF.pdf OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” was prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to RF/MW radiation adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 65 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bulletin%2065%20-%20Cell%20Towers.pdf The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC- regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For further information and answers to questions about the safety of RF/MW radiation from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC go to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html.

Canadian Government Information Industry Canada is the organization that sets regulatory requirements for electromagnetic spectrum management and radio equipment in Canada. Industry Canada establishes standards for equipment certification and, as part of these standards, developed RSS-102, which specifies permissible radiofrequency RF/MW radiation levels. For this purpose, Industry Canada adopted the limits outlined in Health Canada's Safety-Code 6, which is a guideline document for limiting RF exposure. A downloadable version of “RSS-102 - Evaluation Procedure for Mobile and Portable Radio Transmitters with respect to Health Canada's Safety Code 6 for Exposure of Humans to Radio Frequency Fields”, as well as additional information can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Safety%20Code%206.pdf

Safety Code 6 specifies the requirements for the use of radiation emitting devices. This Code replaces the previous Safety Code 6 - EHD-TR-160. A downloadable version of “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz TO 300 GHz – Safety Code 6”, as well as further detailed information can be found at .http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Non-Ionizing%20Radiation%20Volume%2080.pdf http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

US and Canadian Legal Issues Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF/MW radiation in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the United States Federal Government to control human exposure to RF/MW radiation. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb. In a recent opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, No. 03-1336 EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, the Court upheld the FCC's decision not to initiate an inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the facilities and products subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in its September 2001 Petition for Inquiry.

At the request of the EMR Network, the EMR Policy Institute provided legal and research support for this appeal. On January 13, 2005, a Petition for Rehearing en banc by the full panel of judges at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was filed. Briefs, background documents and the DC Circuit decision are found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm. The Toronto Medical Officer of Health for the Toronto Board of Health recommended to Health Canada that public exposure limits for RF/MW radiation be made 100 times stricter; however the recommendation was not allowed, since, as in the US, only the Canadian federal government can regulate RF/MW radiation exposure level.

World Health Organization Efforts In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project to review the scientific literature and work towards resolution of health concerns over the use of RF/MW technology. WHO maintains a Web site that provides addition information on this project and about RF/MW biological effects and research. For further information go to http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/.

Conclusion For decades, the International Association of Fire Fighters has been directly involved in protecting and promoting the health and safety of our membership. However, we simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences of long- term exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation of the type used by the cell phone base stations and antennas will be. No one knows--the data just aren't there. The chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP), one of the leading international organizations which formulated the current RF/MW radiation exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive (49) Again, fire department facilities, where fire fighters and emergency response personnel live and work are not the proper place for a technology which could endanger their health and safety

The only reasonable and responsible course is to conduct a study of the highest scientific merit and integrity on the RF/MW radiation health effects to our membership and, in the interim, oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

Footnotes [back] 1. Revised and Amended IAFF Resolution No. 15; August 2004 Study of Firefighters Exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation from Cell Towers/Masts WHEREAS, fire stations across the United States and Canada are being sought by wireless companies as base stations for the antennas and towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions; and WHEREAS, many firefighters who are living with cell towers on or adjacent to their stations are paying a substantial price in terms of physical and mental health. As first responders and protectors of the general public, it is crucial that firefighters are functioning at optimal cognitive and physical capacity at all times; and WHEREAS, the brain is the first organ to be affected by RF radiation and symptoms manifest in a multitude of neurological conditions including migraine headaches, extreme fatigue, disorientation, slowed reaction time, vertigo, vital memory loss

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

and attention deficit amidst life threatening emergencies; and WHEREAS, most of the firefighters who are experiencing symptoms can attribute the onset to the first week(s) these towers/antennas were activated; and WHEREAS, RF radiation is emitted by these cellular antennas and RF radiation can penetrate every living cell, including plants, animals and humans; and WHEREAS, both the U. S. and Canadian governments established regulatory limits for RF radiation based on thermal (heat) measurements with no regard for the adverse health effects from non-thermal radiation which is proven to harm the human brain and immune system; and WHEREAS, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency stated in a July 16, 2002, letter, “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures. The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism (RF radiation from cell towers is non-thermal) but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protecting human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”; and WHEREAS, an Expert Panel Report requested by the Royal Society of Canada prepared for Health Canada (1999) stated that, “Exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels required to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and tissues. These biological effects include alterations in the activity of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase, in calcium regulation, and in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Some of these biological effects brought about by non- thermal exposure levels of RF could potentially be associated with adverse health effects”; and WHEREAS, based on concerns over growing scientific evidence of dangers from RF radiation, an international conference was convened in Salzburg, Austria, in the summer of 2000 where renowned scientists declared the upper-most RF radiation exposure limit from a tower-mast should be 1/10th of 1 microwatt (Note that 1/10th of 1 microwatt is 10,000 times lower than the uppermost limit allowed by the U. S. or Canada.); and it should be noted this limit was set because of study results showing brain wave changes at 1/10th of 1 microwatt; and WHEREAS, in a recently cleared paper by Dr. Richard A. Albanese of the U. S. Air Force, a highly recognized physician in the area of the impact of radiation on the human body, Dr. Albanese states, “I would ask a good faith effort in achieving as low exposure rates as are possible within reasonable financial constraints. Also I would fund targeted studies using animal subjects and human groups living or working in high radiation settings or heavy cellular phone users, emphasizing disease causations. I urge acceptance of the ideal that there should be no unmonitored occupational or environmental exposures whose associated disease rates are unknown.” (The opinions expressed herein are those of Dr. Albanese, and do not reflect the policies of the United States Air Force.); and WHEREAS, recently a study, not affiliated with the wireless industry, was conducted of firefighters exposed to RF radiation from cell towers/antennas affixed to their stations.** The study revealed brain damage that can be differentiated from chemical causation (such as inhalation of toxic smoke) suggesting RF radiation as the cause of the brain damage found on SPECT scans; and WHEREAS, firefighters are the protectors of people and property and should be protected under the Precautionary Principle of Science and therefore, unless radiation is proven safe and harmless, cellular antennas should not be placed on or near fire stations; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the IAFF shall seek funding for an initial U. S. and Canadian study with the highest scientific merit and integrity, contrasting firefighters with residence in stations with towers to firefighters without similar exposure; and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with the results of the study, the IAFF will establish protective policy measures with the health and safety of all firefighters as the paramount objective; and be it further RESOLVED, That the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for antennas and towers for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until such installations are proven not to be hazardous to the health of our members. **Note: A pilot study was conducted in 2004 of six California fire fighters working and sleeping in stations with towers. The study, conducted by Gunnar Heuser, M.D., PhD. of Agoura Hills, CA, focused on neurological symptoms of six fire fighters who had been working for up to five years in stations with cell towers. Those symptoms included slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, sleep deprivation, depression, and tremors. Dr. Heuser used functional brain scans - SPECT scans - to assess any changes in the brains of the six fire fighters as compared to healthy brains of men of the same age. Computerized psychological testing known as TOVA was used to study reaction time, impulse control, and attention span. The SPECT scans revealed a pattern of abnormal change which was concentrated over a wider area than would normally be seen in brains of individuals exposed to toxic inhalation, as might be expected from fighting fires. Dr. Heuser concluded the only plausible explanation at this time would be RF radiation exposure. Additionally, the TOVA testing revealed among the six fire fighters delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and difficulty in maintaining mental focus.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

[back] 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel." June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July/August 1998

[back] 3. World Health Organization; International Agency for Research on Cancer; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; Volume 80 Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields; 2002; 429 pages; ISBN 92 832 1280 0; See http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol80/volume80.pdf This IARC Monograph provides the rationale for its designation of ELF/EMF as a possible human carcinogen. It states that: A few studies on genetic effects have examined chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes from workers exposed to ELF electric and magnetic fields. In these studies, confounding by genotoxic agents (tobacco, solvents) and comparability between the exposed and control groups are of concern. Thus, the studies reporting an increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei are difficult to interpret. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of ELF magnetic fields on various genetic end-points. Although increased DNA strand breaks have been reported in brain cells of exposed rodents, the results are inconclusive; most of the studies show no effects in mammalian cells exposed to magnetic fields alone at levels below 50 µT. However, extremely strong ELF magnetic fields have caused adverse genetic effects in some studies. In addition, several groups have reported that ELF magnetic fields enhance the effects of known DNA- and chromosome-damaging agents such as ionizing radiation. The few animal studies on cancer-related non-genetic effects are inconclusive. Results on the effects on in-vitro cell proliferation and malignant transformation are inconsistent, but some studies suggest that ELF magnetic fields affect cell proliferation and modify cellular responses to other factors such as melatonin. An increase in apoptosis following exposure of various cell lines to ELF electric and magnetic fields has been reported in several studies with different exposure conditions. Numerous studies have investigated effects of ELF magnetic fields on cellular end-points associated with signal transduction, but the results are not consistent. [back] 4. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: "Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in people subject to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency fields. In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations." International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters," Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996 The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states: "An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable data on chronic exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute exposures, even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature." IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for Safe Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992.

[back] 5. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997) using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our current standards (SAR of 1.6 W/Kg, the http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. This shows that "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note that "because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, glioblastoma, a human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research. E.M. Czerska, J. Casamento, J. T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cell Proliferation," [Abstract presented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics and Possible Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MD] E. M. Czerska, J. Casamento Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; H. T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA [back] 6. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the International Electromagnetic Fields Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lymphomas (a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the researchers pointed out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to develop cancer, and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer." Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true non-thermal effect." He repeated the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implications for his original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed no statistical differences, which lessens the possibility that the RF/MW radiation study result was a chance event or due to errors in methodology." It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was developed in 1996. M. Repacholi et al., "Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields," Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997 [back] 7. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital at Loma Linda University in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones. The rats were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hours a day, four days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes, so total exposure was 4 hours a week. Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital, analog signal was used. Rats exposed developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency can influence cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study. Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital at Loma Linda University, CA presented the results of pulsed (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997 2nd World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy. Reviews can be found in Microwave News issues July/August, 1996 and March/April 1997. In recognition of his more than three decades of "fundamental contributions to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields," the authors of the November 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) chose to include Dr. Adey's personal views on Electromagnetic Field Exposure research as the Foreword to that report. To view the entire report, see: REFLEX Final Report.pdf The following is taken from Dr. Adey's Foreword found on pages 1-3 of the REFLEX Report: The Future of Fundamental Research in a Society Seeking Categoric Answers to Health Risks of New Technologies In summary, we have become superstitious users of an ever-growing range of technologies, but we are now unable to escape the web that they have woven around us.

Media reporters in general are no better informed. Lacking either responsibility or accountability, they have created feeding frenzies from the tiniest snippets of information gleaned from scientific meetings or from their own inaccurate interpretation of published research. In consequence, the public has turned with pleading voices to government legislatures and bureaucracies for guidance . . .

We face the problem brought on by the blind leading the blind. Because of public pressure for rapid answers to very complex

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

biological and physical issues, short-term research programs have been funded to answer specific questions about certain health risks. In many countries, and particularly in the USA, the effects of such harassing and troublesome tactics on independent, careful fundamental research have been near tragic. Beguiled by health hazard research as the only source of funding, accomplished basic scientists have diverted from a completely new frontier in physical regulation of biological mechanisms at the atomic level. Not only have governments permitted corporate interests in the communications industry to fund this research, they have even permitted them to determine the research questions to be addressed and to select the institutions performing the research. [back] 8. Dr. A. W. Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27 months of age to low- level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers. A. W. Guy, C. K. Chou, L. Kunz, L, Crowley, and J. Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure on Rats." Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, USF-SAM- TR-85-11; 1985 [back] 9. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported both single- and double- strand DNA breaks in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases. H. Lai and N. P. Singh, "Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation," International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No. 4, 513-521, 1996

[back] 10. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has found that those exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation in the workplace had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data suggesting a dose-response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed, and those exposed to 600- 1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. The level considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations is 1000 W/cm2 . Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm2 is allowed. S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation," The Science of the Total Environment 180:9-17, 1996 [back] 11. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02 W/cm2 farther from the towers. B. Hocking, I. R. Gordon, H. L. Grain, and G. E. Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers," Medical Journal of Australia 165: 601-605; 1996 [back] 12. Drs. Mann and Röschke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency RF/MW radiation of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percentage of REM sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especially concerning consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with alterations of memory and learning functions." K. Mann and J. Röschke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep," Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996 [back] 13. Dr. Allen Frey has been researching RF/MW radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the abstract on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous recent reports of headaches occurring in association with the use of hand-held cellular telephones. Are these reported headaches real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is reason to believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier. Third, the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines of research, the microwave energy used was approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies--as those emitted by present day cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects?" A. H. Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Perspectives Volume 106, Number 3, pp.101-103, March 1998 [back] 14. Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF/MW radiation: Existing data indicate that RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux, and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RR have been reported. Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF/MW radiation exposure could lead to adverse consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an accident when a person is driving. Loss of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF/MW radiation. Research has also shown that the effects of RF/MW radiation on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RF/MW radiation could be a stress response. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes. H. Lai, "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology," Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk?" September 16-17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium [back] 15. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining the blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that "Even though most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF/MW radiation of high intensities with significant increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposure to RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensities...Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF." Pulsed RF/MW is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm2 level, and even at SAR of 0.016-5 W/kg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 16. Cellular Morphology: RF/MW radiation induced morphological changes of the central nervous system cells and tissues have been shown to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the RF/MW radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF/MW radiation produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them, for instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in morphology, especially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Injury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 W/kg or even 0.26 W/kg. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 17. Neural Electrophysiology: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, and EEG have been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesting cumulative effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cm2 . H. Lai, Ibid [back] 18. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve cell to another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, serotonin, and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF/MW radiation. However, there are more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities of RF radiation. For example, effects were seen at 50 µW/cm2 in one experiment. U.S. and Canadian RF/MW radiation safety policies allow exposures of 1000 µW/cm2 at that frequency. RF/MW radiation activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine-like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, such as pain perception and motivation.

The response to RF/MW radiation depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure. Exposure to RF/MW radiation has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium). H. Lai, Ibid [back] 19. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RF/MW radiation exposure on

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposure to relatively low intensity RF/MW radiation for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the frequency and modulation characteristics of the RF/MW radiation and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue. Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neurotransmitters and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some researchers have also reported no significant effects of RF/MW radiation exposure on calcium efflux. However, when positive effects were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF/MW radiation of relatively low intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF/MW radiation studied (window effects). Some studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 20. Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RF/MW radiation. Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF/MW radiation , and these results could have important implication for the health effects of RF/MW radiation . Genetic damage to glial cells can result in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neuronal genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of 1 mW/cm2 were employed, a level considered safe for the public by the FCC. RF/MW radiation -induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds are potent free radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. If free radicals are involved in the RF- induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have an important implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, such as cancer and atherosclerosis, has been suggested. Free radicals also play an important role in the aging process, which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington, and Parkinson, has also been suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of RF/MW radiation exposure. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 21. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy of Sciences, presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time was slower. A. A. Kolodynski, V. V. Kolodynska, "Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia," The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93, 1996 [back] 22. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency RF/MW radiation at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" function. H Lai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat," Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994

NOTE: Dr. Lai's January 2005 compilation of published RF/MW radiation studies demonstrating biological effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is included as a Reference section at the end of this report. [back] 23. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to RF/MW radiation of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal where the report appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressure." S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field," The Lancet 351, pp. 1,857-1,858, 1998 [back] 24. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration) found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power density pulsed RF/MW radiation caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage to the cells covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the "acceptable, safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering from glaucoma. This is a very important study, as it points to the fact that laboratory experiments under "ideal" conditions are rarely what one finds in real life. The "safe" level of RF/MW radiation exposure for healthy people is likely to be very different than for those of us who suffer from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply younger or older than those in the experiments. H. A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, and S. Koslov, "Increased Sensitivity of the Non-Human http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment," Bioelectromagnetics 13:379-393, 1992 [back] 25. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development of children." Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF Project will last for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project." World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, The International EMF Project," reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems," reviewed May 1998, [back] 26. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the FDA established the following priorities:

Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority. Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis. Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular effects of RF radiation exposure). Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A careful replication of the Chou and Guy study (Bioelectromagnetics, 13, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, would contribute a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products. Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on induction of micronuclei. Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted.

Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News, March/April, 1997 [back] 27. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is planning a multi-country, multi-million dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998. Microwave News, January/February, 1998 [back] 28. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone radiation and brain tumors in 1997. Microwave News, November/December, 1997 [back] 29. The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and RF/MW radiation in 1993. Microwave News, January/February, 1993 [back] 30. The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called for a 5 year research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997. Microwave News , January/February, 1997 [back] 31. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is imperative that the scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more research to examine the potential health effects of RF radiation. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 32. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5 year, $3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 33. The Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barnett, a principal researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year period would be necessary. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 34. In Canada, Expert Panels are formed in response to requests from governments and other organizations for guidance on public policy issues where specialized knowledge is required. The Royal Society of Canada (RSC) is the only national academic organization, encompassing all fields of study in the sciences, arts and humanities that provides, through its Committee on Expert Panels, a service to Canadians by convening Expert Panels that produce publicly disseminated, arms-length, third party reviews. The most recent Expert Panel report addressing RF/MW radiation examines new data on dosimetry and exposure assessment, thermoregulation, biological effects such as enzyme induction, and toxicological effects, including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and testicular and reproductive outcomes. Epidemiological studies of mobile phone users and occupationally exposed populations are examined, along with human and animal studies of neurological and behavioural effects. All of the authoritative reviews completed within the last two years have supported the need for further research to clarify the possible associations between RF fields and adverse health outcomes that have appeared in some reports. See: http://www.rsc.ca//index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=120. Recent Advances in Research on Radiofrequency Fields and Health: 2001-2003; A Follow-up to The Royal Society of Canada, Report on the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, 1999

[back] 35. The European Union effort to address this issue is in the study Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods (REFLEX). Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in relation to health is a controversial topic throughout the industrial world. So far epidemiological and animal studies have generated conflicting data and thus uncertainty regarding possible adverse health effects. This situation has triggered controversies in communities especially in Europe with its high density of population and industry and the omnipresence of EMF in infrastructures and consumer products. These controversies are affecting the siting of facilities, leading people to relocate, schools to close or power lines to be re-sited, all at great expense. The European Union believes that causality between EMF exposure and disease can never be regarded as proven without knowledge and understanding of the basic mechanisms possibly triggered by EMF. To search for those basic mechanisms powerful technologies developed in toxicology and molecular biology were to be employed in the REFLEX project to investigate cellular and sub- cellular responses of living cells exposed to EMF in vitro. The REFLEX data have made a substantial addition to the data base relating to genotoxic and phenotypic effects of both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF on in vitro cellular systems. While the data neither precludes nor confirms a health risk due to EMF exposure nor was the project designed for this purpose, the value lies in providing new data that will enable mechanisms of EMF effects to be studied more effectively than in the past. Furthermore, the REFLEX data provide new information that will be used for risk evaluation by WHO, IARC and ICNIRP. For further information on REFLEX see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/ka4/ka4_electromagnetic_en.html [back] 36. The Swedish Radiation Protections Institute (SSI) endeavors to ensure that human beings and the environment are protected from the harmful effects of radiation, both in the present and in the future. SSI has focused on epidemiological research on cancer and exposure from mobile phones and transmitters as well as experimental cancer research. In addition three selected topics were also discussed, namely blood-brain barrier, heat shock proteins, and precautionary framework. For further information on SSI see: http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/eng_forfattlista.html [back] 37. In the United Kingdom, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) was created by the Radiological Protection Act 1970. The statutory functions of NRPB are to advance the acquisition of knowledge about the protection of mankind from radiation hazards through research and to provide information and advice to persons (including Government Departments) with responsibilities in the United Kingdom in relation to the protection from radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the community. The NFPB believes that there is a need for better occupational studies rather than simply for more. In particular, the studies need to be of occupational groups for whom measurements show that there is genuinely a substantially raised exposure to RF fields. If the studies are to be more informative than those so far, a key requirement will be for improved exposure measurement (or improved estimation of exposure) for individuals, or at least for occupational groups. It would be desirable, as far as practical, that the studies should measure the intensity and timing of RF field exposures, and also that they should include some assessment of major RF field exposures from sources other than the current occupation. Ideally, exposure assessment needs to be anatomical site (organ)-specific, because some sources result in greatly differing doses to different parts of the body. It is a difficulty in these prescriptions, of course, that the appropriate exposure metric is unknown. For further information on NRPB see: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/ [back] 38. On January 5, 2005, the EMF-Team Finland issued the Helsinki Appeal 2005 to members of the European Parliament. In it physicians and researchers call on the European Parliament to apply the Precautionary Principle to electromagnetic fields, especially in the radio- and microwave- frequency bands. They criticize the present RF/MW radiation safety standards that do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-thermal exposures to non-ionizing radiation [i.e., RF/MW radiation.] They also call for continued refunding of the REFLEX EMF research program. The text of the Helsinke

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Appeal 2005 is found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/index.htm [back] 39. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association: "I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following comments when you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found absolutely safe. In fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there can be no hazard, leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at all.....More specifically, your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellular phones are "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk Paper also states, "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it before, is this: Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe, or that they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is needed." Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July/August, 1993 [back] 40. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among them (1) "the ANSI/IEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect." Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993 [back] 41. A brief sampling of the CSIRO report: Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure. As a result, such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological studies providing useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of cancer growth. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent years. RF safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been aimed at the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to find that although the literature contains many hundreds of publications, there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of clear thresholds and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided answers. There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well-established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle non-thermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and apply to human health. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 42. Statement from the October 25-28, 1998 "Symposium of Mobile Phones and Health - Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields" held at the University of Vienna, Austria.

The preferred terminology to be used in public communication: Instead of using the terms "athermal", "non-thermal" or "microthermal" effects, the term "low intensity biological effects" is more appropriate. Preamble: The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose assessment.

Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured: The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.

Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved: Technical data should be made available to the users to

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developments of low-intensity emission devices. [back] 43. Statement from the June 7-8, 2000 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting Linking Science and Public Health, Salzburg, Austria. The full report can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/cell_tower_measurements.pdf · It is recommended that development rights for the erection and for operation of a base station should be subject to a permission procedure. The protocol should include the following aspects:

o Information ahead and active involvement of the local public o Inspection of alternative locations for the siting o Protection of health and wellbeing o Considerations on conservation of land- and townscape o Computation and measurement of exposure o Considerations on existing sources of HF-EMF exposure o Inspection and monitoring after installation

· It is recommended that a national database be set up on a governmental level giving details of all base stations and their emissions. · It is recommended for existing and new base stations to exploit all technical possibilities to ensure exposure is as low as achievable (ALATA-principle) and that new base stations are planned to guarantee that the exposure at places where people spend longer periods of time is as low as possible, but within the strict public health guidelines. · Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. There is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.

o Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable uncertainties and should be considered preliminary. For the total of all high frequency irradiation a limit value of 100 mW/m² (10 µW/cm²) is recommended.

o For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for the sum total of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities such as GSM base stations of 1 mW/m² (0.1 µW/cm²) is recommended.

[back] 44. Scientists attending the September 13-14, 2002 International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues,” organized by ISPESL (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy), the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania, held in Catania, Italy, agreed to the following:

· Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence for electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health. · We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.

· There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.

· The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use. · We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research. [back] 45. The Freiburger Appeal is a German based appeal by mainly medical practitioners who are concerned about the effects, they believe, from mobile phone technology including masts that are appearing in their patients. It started in Oct 2002 and with very little international publicity has got 50,000 signatories with at least 2000 medical signatures from across the world. Mast These physicians and scientists agreed to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

Excerpt: On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development. One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body–immune system, and can bring the body–still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk. Statement of the physicians and researchers of Interdisziplinäre Gesellschaft für Umweltmedizin e. V. (Interdisciplinary Association for Environmental Medicine) IGUMED, Sackingen, Germany, September 19, 2002. The Freiburger Appeal can be found at: http://www.mastsanity.org/doctors-appeals.html. [back] 46. Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), November 2004. The Project studied ELF and RF exposures to various animal cell types. The report is found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/REFLEX%20Final%20Report.pdf From the Summary: [t]he omnipresence of EMF's in infrastructures and consumer products have become a topic of public concern. This is due to the fear of people that based on the many conflicting research data a risk to their health cannot be excluded with some certainty. Therefore, the overall objective of REFLEX was to find out whether or not the fundamental biological processes at the cellular and molecular level support such an assumption. For this purpose, possible effects of EMF’s on cellular events controlling key functions, including those involved in carcinogenesis and in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders, were studied through focused research. Failure to observe the occurrence of such key critical events in living cells after EMF exposure would have suggested that further research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial resources be reallocated to the investigation of more important issues. But as clearly demonstrated, the results of the REFLEX project show the way into the opposite direction.

[back] 47. From the Discussion section of the December 20, 2004 Second Annual Report of Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) entitled: Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks: Second Annual Report from SSI's Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields. The complete report is available at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/EMF_exp_Eng_2004.pdf To date, little is known about the levels of radiofrequency radiation exposure in the general population from sources such as mobile phones being used by oneself or other people, mobile phone base stations, and radio and television transmitters. Measurements that have been performed have usually been made as a result of public concern about base station exposures or other specific sources, and have therefore been made at locations that could be assumed to have higher fields than would be the case if measurement locations were selected randomly. Furthermore, all measurements have been stationary, and there is today no knowledge about the level of exposure that an individual will have throughout the day. There is need for information about the personal exposure to RF fields in the general population, to enhance the understanding of the relative importance of exposure from base stations close to the home, from radio and television transmitters, and from the use of mobile phones . . . Studies with personal RF exposure measurements of randomly selected samples of the general population are strongly encouraged. [back] 48. Released January 11, 2005, Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB Documents of the NRPB: Volume 15, No. 5. See: Mobile Phones and Health 2004 From the Executive Summary: The Board notes that a central recommendation in the Stewart Report was that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. The Board considers that it is important to understand the signal characteristics and field strengths arising from new telecommunications systems and related technologies, to assess the RF exposure of people, and to understand the potential biological effects on the human body. [back] 49. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse health impacts," according to Dr. Jürgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, which cover the spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in St. Pete Beach, FL, on June 10. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" such as nerve stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the April issue of Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other non-thermal health effects have not been "established." ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk, Bernhardt noted that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

evidence is less than conclusive. Microwave News, July/August 1998

Additional References and Studies The following references reporting biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at low intensities through January 2005 were compiled on 12/27/04 by Henry C. Lai PhD, Research Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Balode Sci Total Environ 180(1):81-85, 1996 - blood cells from cows from a farm close and in front of a radar installation showed significantly higher level of severe genetic damage.

Boscol et al. Sci Total Environ 273(1-3):1-10, 2001 - RFR from radio transmission stations (0.005 mW/cm2 ) affects immune system in women.

Chiang et al. J. Bioelectricity 8:127-131, 1989 - people who lived and worked near radio antennae and radar installations showed deficits in psychological and short-term memory tests.

de Pomerai et al. Nature 405:417-418, 2000. Enzyme Microbial Tech 30:73-79, 2002 - reported an increase in a molecular stress response in cells after exposure to a RFR at a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. This stress response is a basic biological process that is present in almost all animals - including humans.

de Pomerai et al. (FEBS Lett 22;543(1-3):93-97, 2003 - RFR damages proteins at 0.015-0.020 W/kg.

D'Inzeo et al. Bioelectromagnetics 9(4):363-372, 1988 - very low intensity RFR (0.002 – 0.004 mW/cm2) affects the operation of acetylcholine-related ion-channels in cells. These channels play important roles in physiological and behavioral functions.

Dolk et al. Am J Epidemiol 145(1):1-91997- a significant increase in adult leukemias was found in residents who lived near the Sutton Coldfield television (TV) and frequency modulation (FM) radio transmitter in England.

Dutta et al.Bioelectromagnetics 10(2):197-202 1989 - reported an increase in calcium efflux in cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 W/kg. Calcium is an important component of normal cellular functions.

Fesenko et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):29-35, 1999 - reported a change in immunological functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 .

Hallberg O, Johansson O, ( 2004) concluded that continuous disturbance of cell repair mechanisms by body-resonant FM electromagnetic fields seems to amplify the carcinogenic effects resulting from cell damage caused e.g. by UV-radiation.

Hjollund et al. Reprod Toxicol 11(6):897, 1997 - sperm counts of Danish military personnel, who operated mobile ground-to- air missile units that use several RFR emitting radar systems (maximal mean exposure 0.01 mW/cm2), were significantly lower compared to references.

Hocking et al. Med J Aust 165(11-12):601-605, 1996 - an association was found between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers.

Ivaschuk et al. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):223-229, 1999 - short-term exposure to cellular phone RFR of very low SAR (26 mW/kg) affected a gene related to cancer.

Kolodynski and Kolodynska, Sci Total Environ 180(1):87-93, 1996 - school children who lived in front of a radio station had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower, and their neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased.

Kwee et al. Electro- and Magnetobiology 20: 141-152, 2001 - 20 minutes of cell phone RFR exposure at 0.0021 W/kg increased stress protein in human cells.

Lebedeva et al. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 28(1-2):323-337, 2000 - brain wave activation was observed in human subjects exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.06 mW/cm2 .

Magras and Xenos Bioelectromagnetics 18(6):455-461, 1999 - reported a decrease in reproductive function in mice exposed to RFR at power densities of 0.000168 - 0.001053 mW/cm2 . Irreversible sterility was found in the fifth generation of offspring.

Mann et al. Neuroendocrinology 67(2):139-144, 1998 - a transient increase in blood cortisol was observed in human subjects

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.02 mW/cm2 . Cortisol is a hormone involved in stress reaction.

Marinelli et al. J Cell Physiol. 198(2):324-332, 2004 - exposure to 900-MHz RFR at 0.0035 W/kg affected cell’s self-defense responses.

Michelozzi et al. Epidemiology 9 (Suppl) 354p, 1998 - leukemia mortality within 3.5 km (5,863 inhabitants) near a high power radio-transmitter in a peripheral area of Rome was higher than expected.

Michelozzi et al. Am J Epidemiol 155(12):1096-1103, 2002 - childhood leukemia higher at a distance up to 6 km from a radio station.

Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya “Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields, Volume 1," D.O. Carpenter (ed) Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.333-342. 1994 - RFR at low intensities (0.01 - 0.1 mW/cm2; 0.0027- 0.027 W/kg) induced behavioral and endocrine changes in rats. Decreases in blood concentrations of testosterone and insulin were reported.

Novoselova et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):37-41, 1999 -low intensity RFR (0.001 mW/cm2 ) affects functions of the immune system.

Park et al. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 77(6):387-394, 2004 - higher mortality rates for all cancers and leukemia in some age groups in the area near the AM radio broadcasting towers.

Persson et al. Wireless Network 3:455-461, 1997 - reported an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in mice exposed to RFR at 0.0004 - 0.008 W/kg. The blood-brain barrier envelops the brain and protects it from toxic substances.

Phillips et al. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 45:103-110, 1998 - reported DNA damage in cells exposed to RFR at SAR of 0.0024 - 0.024 W/kg.

Polonga-Moraru et al. Bioelectrochemistry 56(1-2):223-225, 2002 - change in membrane of cells in the retina (eye) after exposure to RFR at 15 µW/cm2 .

Pyrpasopoulou et al. Bioelectromagnetics 25(3):216-227, 2004 - exposure to cell phone radiation during early gestation at SAR of 0.0005 W/kg (5 µW/cm2 ) affected kidney development in rats.

Salford et al. Environ Health Persp Online January 29, 2003 - Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones signal at 0.02 W/kg.

Santini et al. Pathol Biol (Paris) 50(6):369-373, 2002 - increase in complaint frequencies for tiredness, headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, in people who lived within 300 m of mobile phone base stations.

Sarimov et al. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32:1600-1608, 2004 - GSM microwaves affect human lymphocyte chromatin similar to stress response at 0.0054 W/kg.

Schwartz et al. Bioelectromagnetics 11(4):349-358, 1990 - calcium movement in the heart affected by RFR at SAR of 0.00015 W/kg. Calcium is important in muscle contraction. Changes in calcium can affect heart functions.

Somosy et al. Scanning Microsc 5(4):1145-1155, 1991 - RFR at 0.024 W/kg caused molecular and structural changes in cells of mouse embryos.

Stagg et al. Bioelectromagnetics 18(3):230-236, 1997- glioma cells exposed to cellular phone RFR at 0.0059 W/kg showed significant increases in thymidine incorporation, which may be an indication of an increase in cell division.

Stark et al. J Pineal Res 22(4):171-176, 1997 - a two- to seven-fold increase of salivary melatonin concentration was observed in dairy cattle exposed to RFR from a radio transmitter antenna.

Tattersall et al. Brain Res 904(1):43-53, 2001 - low-intensity RFR (0.0016 - 0.0044 W/kg) can modulate the function of a part of the brain called the hippocampus, in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be consistent with reported behavioral effects of RFR, since the hippocampus is involved in learning and memory.

Vangelova et al. Cent Eur J Public Health 10(1-2):24-28, 2002 - operators of satellite station exposed to low dose (0.1127 J/kg) of RFR over a 24-hr shift showed an increased excretion of stress hormones.

Velizarov et al. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 48(1):177-180, 1999 - showed a decrease in cell proliferation (division) after

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

exposure to RFR of 0.000021 - 0.0021 W/kg.

Veyret et al. Bioelectromagnetics 12(1):47-56, 1991 - low intensity RFR at SAR of 0.015 W/kg affects functions of the immune system.

Wolke et al. Bioelectromagnetics 17(2):144-153, 1996 - RFR at 0.001W/kg affects calcium concentration in heart muscle cells of guinea pigs.

Return to Top of Document

The International Association of Fire Fighters recognizes IAFF Local 3368, Carpinteria-Summerland, California, who brought this issue to the attention of our membership through the Resolution 15, submitted through our biennial convention in August 2004. Additionally, the following local affiliates provided support for the passage of the resolution: Brookline, Massachusetts, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. We also acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Henry C. Lai, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario; Janet Newton, President of the EMR Policy Institute; and Susan Foster Ambrose for their technical support and continued passion to protect the health and safety of fire fighters and emergency medical personnel. Finally, we thank Dr. Leslie Plachta and the Safe Ossining Schools for their research efforts and their battle to stop siting cell towers on Ossining, New York schools. RMD; 3/2005

Programs & Services Departments Burn Fund Resources Communications & Media Center of Excellence Education and Human Relations FIREPAC Fire and EMS Operations How to Become a Fire Fighter Governmental & Public Policy FIRE OPS 101 Grants Administration Fire Ground Survival HazMat Fit to Survive Health & Safety HazMat Training Human Relations IAFF Financial Corporation IAFF Canada Job Center Labor Issues IAFF Media Awards Contest Legal Wellness-Fitness Initiative Membership FireRescue1 Academy Pension Resources Purdue University Global Political Department IAFF-MDA IAFF En Français Peer Support Training Related Sites IAFF Foundation IAFF History Fire Fighter Quarterly IAFF-TV ALTS 2019 Convention 2018

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] Occupational Medicine

IAFF Alumni IAFF Honor Roll IAFF Frontline Blog IAFF Motorcycle Group IAFF Wine Club Canada International Fire Fighters Union Alliance Union Sportsmen's Alliance About IAFF Social Websites About Us

© 2019 - IAFF

http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm[4/1/2019 5:14:43 PM] https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of- ways/ USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES & ORDINANCES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WIRELESS FACILITIES SMALL CELLS From coast to coast local governments are taking action to protect their communities from the unfettered deployment of 4G and 5G “small cell” wireless facilities. Several cities are passing ordinances that strictly limit the buildout. Many policymakers ask “What are other cities doing?” This page is a compilation of top examples of what cities are doing to protect their communities. For each city we provide a short synopsis along with a link to download the ordinance or policy. Scroll down to see the City and policy. Please download and share these examples with your community. Local ordinances note various purposes such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Some combine several of these approaches. Importantly, federal pre-emption has been exaggerated. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements for example. Please consider these two useful documents that came out of the efforts in Montgomery County Maryland by the law office of Mark C. Del Biancoand which clarify what localities can and cannot do in terms of procedural requirements for companies.

 12/ 20/2018 “Summary of Proposed FCC Small Cell Order”: A critical read on the FCC order.  10/2018 Memo: “Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments”

See more resources on 5G – including the research in health effects and impacts to people, trees and wildlife here. Wireless radiation has harmful biological effects levels far below government limits. Examples of areas addressed in these ordinances: LOCATION

 Prohibiting small cell installations in residential areas, certain streets, etc  Requiring installations to be a certain distance away from residences, schools, hospitals, and/or other installations  Specifying that installations must be relocated if/when they would interfere with a public project AESTHETICS / ENVIRONMENT

 Aesthetic, design, and noise requirements such as colocation, camouflage, height and light limits, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE / LEGAL

 Requiring that residents who will be within a certain distance of an installation be notified  Instating automatic time limits for permits  Requiring annual recertification fees  Requiring permittees to defend and indemnify the city from any liabilities arising from permits and the installation, operation and maintenance of small cell installations  Reserving the right to hire independent consultants at the applicant’s expense

OTHER

 Appointing a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network

EXAMPLES OF POLICIES & ORDINANCES Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians 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. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information to this page. 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. 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 Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network Ordinance modeled after Mill Valley’s:

 Small cells prohibited in residential zones  1500 feet separation  City to study citywide fiberoptic cable network.

Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance No. 819 to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G

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 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 Palos Vardes, 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 Vardes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Monterey California Monterey California has now included that it can deny outright an incomplete application “without prejudice”. That stops the shotclock, and it allows an application to be resubmitted all over again along with paying the fees again. to be updated soon. 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 PDF News Stories Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community 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 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 News Stories https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/27/ross-valley-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/ 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 Other Links http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/ 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” 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. 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

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 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 eCode Chapter 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 Sonoma, California: Report and Urgency Ordinance On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance. “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 PDF 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

This document also reviews other Cities 5G small cell policies. News stories “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

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

Holyoke, MA: Initial Request

 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 Booneville, Arkansas, September 2018 Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones News Stories Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018 OTHER ACTIONS Monterey, California: Verizon’s application denied Commissioners overruled staff and voted 7-0 to deny telecom giant Verizon’s small cell application Small Cell Towers nixed in 7-hour Monterey Planning Commission

 http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Los Angeles, California: Deal with Verizon; letter from Mayor to FCC

 “in exchange for amenities such as free Wi-Fi in Skid Row and at recreation centers, $400,000 of scholarship money, and launching an innovation center in the city, L.A. is charging Verizon just $175 per device per year for 10 years for up to 1,000 installations, plus the cost of electricity.” (LA Times)  “In a letter to the FCC, Mayor Eric Garcetti urged the commission to rewrite the ruling before its adoption, arguing that the decision would “insert confusion into the market, and sow mistrust between my technology team and the carriers with whom we have already reached agreements.”” (LA Times)

News Stories LA Times: 5G service rolls out — but not without controversy 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 September 2018 The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information. https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of- ways/ USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES & ORDINANCES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WIRELESS FACILITIES SMALL CELLS From coast to coast local governments are taking action to protect their communities from the unfettered deployment of 4G and 5G “small cell” wireless facilities. Several cities are passing ordinances that strictly limit the buildout. Many policymakers ask “What are other cities doing?” This page is a compilation of top examples of what cities are doing to protect their communities. For each city we provide a short synopsis along with a link to download the ordinance or policy. Scroll down to see the City and policy. Please download and share these examples with your community. Local ordinances note various purposes such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Some combine several of these approaches. Importantly, federal pre-emption has been exaggerated. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements for example. Please consider these two useful documents that came out of the efforts in Montgomery County Maryland by the law office of Mark C. Del Biancoand which clarify what localities can and cannot do in terms of procedural requirements for companies.

 12/ 20/2018 “Summary of Proposed FCC Small Cell Order”: A critical read on the FCC order.  10/2018 Memo: “Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments”

See more resources on 5G – including the research in health effects and impacts to people, trees and wildlife here. Wireless radiation has harmful biological effects levels far below government limits. Examples of areas addressed in these ordinances: LOCATION

 Prohibiting small cell installations in residential areas, certain streets, etc  Requiring installations to be a certain distance away from residences, schools, hospitals, and/or other installations  Specifying that installations must be relocated if/when they would interfere with a public project AESTHETICS / ENVIRONMENT

 Aesthetic, design, and noise requirements such as colocation, camouflage, height and light limits, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE / LEGAL

 Requiring that residents who will be within a certain distance of an installation be notified  Instating automatic time limits for permits  Requiring annual recertification fees  Requiring permittees to defend and indemnify the city from any liabilities arising from permits and the installation, operation and maintenance of small cell installations  Reserving the right to hire independent consultants at the applicant’s expense

OTHER

 Appointing a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network

EXAMPLES OF POLICIES & ORDINANCES Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians 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. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information to this page. 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. 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 Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network Ordinance modeled after Mill Valley’s:

 Small cells prohibited in residential zones  1500 feet separation  City to study citywide fiberoptic cable network.

Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance No. 819 to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G

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 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 Palos Vardes, 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 Vardes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Monterey California Monterey California has now included that it can deny outright an incomplete application “without prejudice”. That stops the shotclock, and it allows an application to be resubmitted all over again along with paying the fees again. to be updated soon. 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 PDF News Stories Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community 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 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 News Stories https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/27/ross-valley-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/ 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 Other Links http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/ 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” 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. 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

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 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 eCode Chapter 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 Sonoma, California: Report and Urgency Ordinance On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance. “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 PDF 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

This document also reviews other Cities 5G small cell policies. News stories “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

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

Holyoke, MA: Initial Request

 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 Booneville, Arkansas, September 2018 Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones News Stories Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018 OTHER ACTIONS Monterey, California: Verizon’s application denied Commissioners overruled staff and voted 7-0 to deny telecom giant Verizon’s small cell application Small Cell Towers nixed in 7-hour Monterey Planning Commission

 http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Los Angeles, California: Deal with Verizon; letter from Mayor to FCC

 “in exchange for amenities such as free Wi-Fi in Skid Row and at recreation centers, $400,000 of scholarship money, and launching an innovation center in the city, L.A. is charging Verizon just $175 per device per year for 10 years for up to 1,000 installations, plus the cost of electricity.” (LA Times)  “In a letter to the FCC, Mayor Eric Garcetti urged the commission to rewrite the ruling before its adoption, arguing that the decision would “insert confusion into the market, and sow mistrust between my technology team and the carriers with whom we have already reached agreements.”” (LA Times)

News Stories LA Times: 5G service rolls out — but not without controversy 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 September 2018 The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information.

To: His Excellency Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Honorable Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization; Honorable Joyce Msuya, Acting Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Program and Assistant Secretary-General of the U.N.; U.N. Member Nations

International Appeal: Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure

We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include– but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

[1]

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”1. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields2. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.

The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF MF) in 20023 and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 20114. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.

Collectively we also request that: 1. children and pregnant women be protected; 2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened; 3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology; 4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current; 5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;

1 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf 2 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPStatementEMF.pdf 3 https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono80.pdf 4 https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono102.pdf

[2]

6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity; 7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers; 8. media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and 9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Initial release date: May 11, 2015 Date of this version: January 1, 2019 Inquiries, including those from qualified scientists who request that their name be added to the Appeal, may be made by contacting Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at [email protected]. Note: the signatories to this appeal have signed as individuals, giving their professional affiliations, but this does not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Signatories

Armenia Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair - Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia

Australia Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Australia Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain

Belgium Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium Dr. Andre Vander Vorst, PhD, professor emeritus, University Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Brazil Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil Prof. Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Cellular&Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

[3]

Canada Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Molecular Oncologist (ret.), British Columbia, Canada Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, China Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Mr. Tarmo Koppel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland Prof. Dr. Osmo Hänninen, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Finland Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen. Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland

France Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France Dr Annie J Sasco, MD, MPH, MS, DrPH, Fmr. Research Dir., French NIH (INSERM); Fmr. Chief, Unit of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at International Agency for Research on Cancer; Fmr. Acting Head, Programme for Cancer Control, World Health Organization; France.

Georgia Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

[4]

Germany Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany Prof. Dr. Hynek Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany Prof. Dr. Karl Hecht, MD, former Director, Institute of Pathophysiology, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ.Physics; Ex-Head, Dept. Clinical Research, Medical University, Lubeck, Germany Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, MD, Member, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V, Bamberg, Germany Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D., Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India Associate Prof. Dr Amarjot Dhami, PhD., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India Er. Piyush A. Kokate, MTECH, Scientist C, Analytical Instrumentation Division (AID), CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), India Prof. Girish Kumar, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India Dr. Pabrita Mandal PhD.,Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India Prof. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad MD, Head, Dept of Neurology, Director, Clinical Epidemiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India Dr. Sivani Saravanamuttu, PhD., Dept. Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, India Dr. N.N. Shareesh, PhD., Melaka Manipal Medical College, India Dr. R.S. Sharma, MD, Sr. Deputy Director General, Scientist - G & Chief Coordinator - EMF Project, Indian Council of Medical Research, Dept. of Health Research, Ministry/Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India Prof. Dr. Dorairaj Sudarsanam, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., Fellow - National Academy of Biological Sciences, Prof. of Zoology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Dept. Advanced Zoology & Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, South India

Iran (Islamic Republic of) Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics&Macromolecules Lab;Instit.Biochemistry&Biophysics,University,Tehran,Iran Prof. Seyed Mohammad Mahdavi, PhD., Dept of Biology, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

[5]

Israel Michael Peleg, M.Sc., radio communications engineer and researcher, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Prof. Elihu D. Richter, MD,MPH, Occupational&Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health&Community Medicine, Israel Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy Prof. Giovanni Di Bonaventura, PhD, School of Medicine, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, Italia Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy Vale Crocetta, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Italy Prof. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life&Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetics Institute of the National Research Council, Italy Dr. Arianna Pompilio, PhD, Dept. Medical, Oral & Biotechnological Sciences. G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy Prof. Dr. Raoul Saggini, MD, School of Medicine, University G. D'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases, B.Ramazzini, Bologna. Italy Prof. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Jordan Prof. Mohammed S.H. Al Salameh, Jordan University of Science & Technology , Jordan

Kazakhstan Prof. Dr, Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria Dr. Obajuluwa Adejoke PhD, Cell Biology and Genetics Unit, Dept of Zoology, University of Ilorin; Lecturer, Biological Sciences Department, Bio-technology Unit, Afe Babalola University, Nigeria Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria Prof. Olatunde Michael Oni , Ph.D, Radiation & Health Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Oman Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

[6]

Poland Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Romania Alina Cobzaru, Engineer, National Institutes Research & Development and Institute of Construction & Sustainability, Romania

Russian Federation Prof. Vladimir N. Binhi, Ph.D., A.M.Prokhorov General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation Dr. Dr. Maxim Trushin, PhD., Kazan Federal University, Russia

Serbia Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research "Sinisa Stankovic", Belgrade, Serbia Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

South Korea (Republic of Korea) Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, South Korea Prof. Hak-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea Prof. Jae Seon Lee, MD, Department of Molecular Medicine, NHA University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, South Korea Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea Prof. Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea

Spain Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain Prof. Dr. Miguel López-Lázaro, PhD., Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Seville, Spain Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain Prof. Dr. Emilio Mayayo, MD, Pathology Unit, School of Medicine, University Rovira I Virgili (URV), Tarragona, Spain Prof Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sudan Mosab Nouraldein Mohammed Hamad, MA, Head, Dept. of Medical Parasitology, Health Sciences, Elsheikh Abdallah Elbadri University, Sudan

[7]

Sweden Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden Dr. Lena Hedendahl, MD, Independent Environment and Health Research, Luleå, Sweden Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre, A.R.A. (Association Romande Alerte, Switzerland

Taiwan (Republic of China) Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Turkey Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey Associate Prof.Dr. Halil Abraham Atasoy, MD, Pediatrics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey Prof. Dr. Osman Cerezci, Electrical-Electronics Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey Prof. Dr. Ali H. Eriş, MD, faculty, Radiation Oncology Department, BAV University Medical School, Turkey Prof. Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey Prof. Associate Prof. Ayse Inhan Garip, PdH., Marmara Univ. School of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Turkey Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Head, Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey Prof. Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Selim Seker, Electrical Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey Prof. Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey Prof. Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), PhD.,Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

Ukraine Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine Prof. Victor Martynyuk, PhD., ECS "Institute of Biology", Head of Biophysics Dept, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ukraine Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Instit. Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

United Kingdom Michael Bevington, M.A., M.Ed., Chair of Trustees, ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK), UK Mr. Roger Coghill, MA,C Biol, MI Biol, MA Environ Mgt; Member Instit.of Biology; Member, UK SAGE Committee on EMF Precautions, UK Mr. David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London, UK Emeritus Professor Denis L. Henshaw, PhD., Human Radiation Effects, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK Dr. Gerard Hyland, Ph.D., Institute of Biophysics, Neuss, Germany, UK Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK Emeritus Professor, Michael J. O’Carroll, PhD., former Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, UK Mr. Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, Brunel University, London, UK Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., independent neuroscience and environmental health research, UK

[8]

United States Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA Prof. Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA Dr. Sandra Cruz-Pol, PhD., Professor Electrical Engineering, on Radio Frequencies, Electromagnetics, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez; Member of US National Academies of Sciences Committee for Radio Frequencies; Puerto Rico, USA Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA Dr. James DeMeo, PhD, retired in private research Paul Raymond Doyon, EMRS, MAT, MA , Doyon Independent Research Associates, USA Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA Dr Reba Goodman Ph.D, Columbia University Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA Dr . Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P. Emeritus member, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; Former Assistant Clinical Professor, UCLA; Former member, Brain Research Institute, UCLA. USA Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA Dr. Seungmo Kim, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Southern University, USA Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D., Gainesville, VA, USA Neha Kumar, Founder, Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Alternatives, Pvt. Ltd; B.Tech - Industrial Biotech., USA Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA Prof. Trevor G. Marshall, PhD, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, USA Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA Dr. Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA Dr. Ronald Melnick, PhD, Senior Toxicologist, (Retired, leader of the NTP's health effects studies of cell phone radio frequency radiation) US National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA Imtiaz Nasim, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Southern University, USA Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA Camilla Rees, MBA, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA Dr. Cindy Lee Russell, M.D. Physicians for Safe Technology, USA Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA ______

Supporting Scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in related fields

Olga Ameixa, PhD. Post-Doctoral Researcher, Dept of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro Campus, Universitário de Santiago, Portugal Michelle Casciani, MA, Environmental Science, President/Chief Executive Officer, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy Enrico Corsetti, Engineer, Research Director, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy Jacques Testart, Biologist, Honorary Research Director at I.N.S.E.R.M. (French National Medical Research Institute), France Xin Li, PhD candidate MSc, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA Dr. Carlos A. Loredo Ritter, MD, Pediatrician, Pediatric Neurologist, President, Restoration Physics, North American Sleep Medicine Society, USA Dr. Robin Maytum, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK

[9]

Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, Ph.D, Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba; President, FUNAM; Recognitions: Scientific Investigation Award from University of Buenos Aires, UNEP 'Global 500' Award (Brussels, Belgium), the Nuclear Free Future Award (Salzburg, Austria), and Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award, Sweden), Argentina. Dr. Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Biologist, Neuroscientist, Advisor to the Dutch EHS Foundation, Netherlands Dr. Carmen Adella Sirbu, MD, Neurology, Lecturer, Titu Matorescu University, Romania

[10]

RESOLUTION NO. 19-03

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 19-01 ESTABLISHING LOCATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENTS

RECITALS

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; California Government Code section 37100 and other applicable law, the Town Council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances, resolutions and other regulations not in conflict with general laws.

WHEREAS, the Town traditionally regulates wireless communication facilities ("WCFs"), both on private property and within the public rights-of-way, by regulations contained in Hillsborough Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, which the city council of the Town of Hillsborough (the "Town Council") adopted by Ordinance No. 720 (Mar. 9, 2015) and amended by Ordinance No. 738 (Jul. 11, 2016).

WHEREAS, since the Town Council last amended Chapter 15.32, significant changes in federal laws that affect local authority over WCFs and other related infrastructure deployments have occurred, including, but not limited to, the following:

• On August 2, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted a Third Report & Order and Declaratory Ruling in the rulemaking proceeding titled Accelerating Wireline and Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Red. 7705 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (the "August Order"), that formally prohibited express and de facto moratoria for all personal wireless services, telecommunications services and their related facilities under 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) and directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau to hear and resolve all complaints on an expedited basis; and

• On September 26, 2018, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in the same rulemaking proceeding, --- FCC Red. ---, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sep. 27, 2018) (the "September Order''), which, among many other things, creates a new regulatory classification for small wireless facilities, alters existing "shot clock" regulations to require local public agencies to do more in less time, establishes a national standard for an effective prohibition that replaces the existing "significant gap'' test adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and provides that a failure to act within the applicable timeframe presumptively constitutes an effective prohibition.

WHEREAS, in addition to the changes described above, local authority may be further impacted by other pending legislative, judicial and regulatory proceedings, including but not limited to:

• The "STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act" (S. 3157) proposed by Senator John Thune that, among other things, would apply specifically to "small" WCFs and require local governments to review applications based on objective standards, shorten the shot clock timeframes, require all local undertakings to occur within the shot clock timeframes and provide a "deemed granted" remedy for failure to act within the applicable shot clock; and

• Further orders and/or declaratory rulings by the FCC from the same rulemaking proceeding as the August Order and September Order; and

• Multiple petitions for reconsideration and judicial review filed by state and local governments against the August Order and September Order, which could cause the rules in either order to change or be invalidated.

WHEREAS, given the rapid and substantial changes in applicable law, the active and effective federal prohibition on reasonable moratorium ordinances to allow local public agencies to study these changes and develop appropriate responses and the significant adverse consequences for noncompliance with these changes in applicable law, the Town Council finds that aesthetic and operational regulations adopted through a resolution that supplements Chapter 15.32 and that may be quickly amended is a necessary and appropriate means to protect the public health , safety and welfare from the potential harm caused by unregulated WCF and other infrastructure deployments.

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2018, December 13, 2018 and January 3, 2019 the Town held community meetings, at which stakeholders could learn about wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues, discuss potential local regulatory responses to the recent changes in federal law and express their design and location preferences, practical and safety concerns, policy views and the essential loca l values that make Hillsborough a uniquely beautiful, rural residential community.

WHEREAS, Council Policy No. 19-01, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, contains the "Design standards" from Chapter 15.32, as amended to reflect the changes in law, respond to stakeholder feedback and preserve the Town's police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare to the maximum extent feasible.

2 WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider an ordinance and urgency ordinance to amend Chapter 15.32 at which the Town Council received, reviewed and considered the staff report, written and oral testimony from the public and other information in the record, introduced the ordinance and adopted the urgency ordinance.

WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this Resolution and Council Policy No. 19-01 at which the Town Council received , reviewed and considered the staff report, written and oral testimony from the public and other information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Findings. The Town Council finds that: (a) the facts set forth in the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated by reference; (b) the recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, public testimony and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this Resolution; (c) the provisions in this Resolution and Council Policy No. 19-01 are consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and applicable federal and state law; and (d) neither this Resolution nor Council Policy No. 19-01 will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.

2. Council Policy No. 19-01. The Town Council approves and adopts Council Policy No. 19-01 .

3. Environmental Review. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines § 15378 and California Public Resources Code § 21065, the Town Council finds that this Resolution is not a "project" because its adoption is not an activity that has the potential for a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if this Resolution qualified as a "project" subject to CEQA, the Town Council finds that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b)(3), there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the physical environment. This Resolution merely restates substantially the same standards as previously contained in Chapter 15.32 but in a manner that complies with new federal regulations. This Resolution does not directly or indirectly authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment. Applications for any new WCF or change to an existing WCF would be subject to additional environmental review on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Town Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to CEQA or, in the alternative, is exempt from CEQA under the general rule.

4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or term (each a "Provision") in this Resolution or Council Policy No. 19-01 , or any Provision's application to any person or circumstance, is held illegal, invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other Provisions not held illegal, invalid or unconstitutional, or such Provision's application to other persons or

3 circumstances, shall not be affected. The Town Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and Council Policy No. 19-01 , and each Provision therein, whether any one or more Provisions be declared illegal, invalid or unconstitutional.

5. Effective Date. This Resolution and Council Policy No. 19-01 will become immediately effective upon adoption by the Town Council and will remain effective until amended, superseded or repealed by a separate resolution adopted by the Town Council.

6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Resolution and Council Policy No. 19- 01 to be published in electronic form on the Town's website, in physical form for public inspection at Town Hall and at least two other public places within the Town and in any other manner required by law. ~~ ~ of Hillsborough

This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 14th day of January 2019, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers Christianson, Royse, Benton, Chuang, May

NOES: Councilmembers ---'-~------None ------ABSENT: Councilmembers -~------None

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ...;...:..:::..;...:..:;..__None ______

4 EXHIBIT "A"

COUNCIL POLICY No. 19-01

(begins behind this coversheet)

5 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Policy No. 19-01

Adopted: January 14, 2019 TOWN COUNCIL POLICY Revised: GENERAL SUBJECT: DESIGN STANDARDS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENTS

Design Standards.

A. Th is policy identifies preferences and requirements for the location and design of WCFs, both on private property and within the public rights-of-way, to provide guidance to (1) prospective applicants as they seek authorization to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair and collocate WCFs in appropriate locations within the town, and (2) the city manager in determining whether to grant, grant with conditions or to deny a WCF application. The Town desires to promote cleanly organized and streamlined infrastructure deployments that utilize the smallest and least intrusive means available to provide essential and beneficial utility services to the community without harming its rural residential character. To that end, this policy is guided by three core principles: First, community health and safety is a paramount concern in all aspects of public right-of-way management and no WCF or other infrastructure deployment shall be permitted in the Town's right-of-way unless it complies with all applicable health and safety regulations. Second, new obstructions and enlargements of existing obstructions in the public rights-of-way implicate both safety and aesthetic concerns and should be avoided to the maximum extent technically feasible and legally permissible. Third, new development should enhance rather than detract from the community's character and , when new or enlarged obstructions cannot be avoided, the applicant must minimize the adverse aesthetic impacts by placing, designing and finishing the equipment in a manner that conceals and blends it with the surrounding environment.

B. This policy applies to all new WCFs and to all collocations and modifications to existing WCFs, except collocations and modifications to existing WCFs that qualify as a Section 6409(a) modification. Unless otherwise provided in this policy, the preferences and requirements in this resolution shall apply equally to WCFs on private property and within the public rights-of-way. To the extent that other infrastructure deployments, including without limitation any deployments that require approval pursuant to Chapter 12.12, involve the same or substantially similar structures, apparatus, equipment, fixtures, equipment or improvements, the town official responsible to review and approve or deny requests for authorization in connection with such other infrastructure deployment shall apply the preferences and requirements in this resolution unless specifically prohibited by applicable law.

C. In addition to the ordered location preferences listed in Hillsborough Municipal Code § 15.32.070.C, a WCF and any other infrastructure deployment must comply with the following:

6 1. A WCF or any other infrastructure deployment shall not be permitted on any new, non-replacement wood poles, unless the wood pole is integrated into a fully concealed pre-approved design pursuant to Section R of this policy.

2. Any antenna(s) proposed to be installed on an existing wood utility pole must be installed directly above the pole within a canister style shroud or radome, unless the applicant demonstrates with objective, fact-based evidence that a top-mounted antenna would be technically infeasible.

3. Applicants that propose to install a WCF on a new, non-replacement pole must install a support structure that fully conceals the equipment from public view and blends with the surrounding environment, which may include, for example, a new streetlight substantially similar to the Town's standards and specifications but designed to accommodate wireless antennas and accessory equipment or a pre-approved design pursuant to Section R of this policy. If there are no existing streetlights in the immediate vicinity, the applicant may install a metal or composite decorative pole capable of concealing all the accessory equipment either within the pole or within an enclosure integrated into the base of the pole. The centerline of the new pole shall be consistent with the location of other existing poles or street trees relative to the edge of the paved road. The pole height shall not exceed 32 feet in overall height above ground level adjacent to the base of the pole. The pole diameter shall not exceed 18 inches and any base enclosure shall not exceed 24 inches.

4. No WCF, other infrastructure deployment or any related equipment, appurtenance or improvement shall be permitted in a location that interferes with or impedes any: (a) worker access to any above-ground or underground infrastructure for traffic control, streetlight or public transportation, including without limitation any curb control sign, parking meter, vehicular traffic sign or signal, pedestrian traffic sign or signal, barricade reflectors; (b) access to any public transportation vehicles, shelters, street furniture or other improvements at any public transportation stop; (c) worker access to above-ground or underground infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency; (d) access to any fire hydrant or water valve; (e) access to any doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or other ingress and egress points to any building or other structure appurtenant to the rights-of-way; (f) access to any fire escape; or (g) access to any driveway or entryway to any private property that abuts the public rights-of-way.

5. Equipment placed above ground, whether pole-mounted or ground-mounted, shall be placed so as to avoid, to the extent technically feasible, prominent visibility from the driveways, entryways and windows associated with residential dwellings. Applicants are encouraged to consult with Town staff in advance to evaluate potential visibility issues. As a general matter, but not as a rule, locations as close to the common property line between adjoining properties as possible will likely comply with this requirement.

7 D. WCFs proposed on private property should be collocated with existing WCFs on private property, if within one thousand five hundred feet of an existing WCF on private property, unless the town determines that the particular design proposed would not create excessive visual clutter or would otherwise create harms the town may ameliorate or the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that collocation with any such existing WCF would be technically infeasible. WCFs within the public rights-of-way should be collocated with existing WCFs within the public rights-of-way, if within 750 feet of an existing WCF within the public rights-of­ way, unless the town determines that the particular design proposed would not create excessive visual clutter or would otherwise create harms the town may ameliorate or the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that collocation with any such existing WCF would be technically infeasible.

E. A WCF or other infrastructure deployment located in the public rights-of-way:

1. Shall place all equipment (other than antennas) underground in any (i) location either within a designated underground utility district; (ii) area where substantially all existing utilities within 1,500 feet from the site are already located underground; or (iii) location where the additional above-ground equipment would incommode the public's use of the public rights-of-way in a manner inconsistent with applicable law. For the purposes of this Policy, an area shall be considered one in which "substantially all existing utilities within 1,500 feet from the site are already located underground" when the there are no overhead lines along the public rights-of-way in front of abutting properties even when existing overhead lines are located within private utility easements outside the public rights-of-way (such as in the case of backyard utility poles). All undergrounded accessory equipment must be installed in an environmentally controlled vault that is load-rated to meet the Town's standards and specifications. Underground vaults located beneath a sidewalk must be constructed with a slip-resistant cover. Vents for airflow shall be flush-to-grade when placed within the sidewalk and may not exceed two feet above grade when placed off the sidewalk. Applicants shall not be permitted to install an underground vault in a location that would cause any existing tree to be materially damaged or displaced unless the city manager specifically approves the proposed location and the applicant provides and plants a replacement tree of a type and in a location acceptable to the city manager.

2. Shall, with respect to its pole-mounted components, be located on an existing or replacement streetlight or an existing utility pole serving another utility; provided, however, that if no streetlight or utility pole exists within 500 feet from the proposed site location and the applicant is authorized to construct new pole in the public rights-of-way, the applicant may propose a new, non-replacement pole consistent with the provisions in Section C.

3. Shall not, with respect to its pole-mounted components, protrude from the surface of the pole more than 18 inches.

4. Shall be concealed within a shroud that has been painted and textured to be consistent with other existing natural or manmade features in the public rights- a of-way near the location where the infrastructure is to be located. All antennas and associated mounting equipment, hardware, cables or other connecters must be completely concealed within an opaque antenna shroud or radome. The antenna shroud or radome must be painted a flat, non-reflective color to match the underlying support structure. Shrouds or radomes must taper to the pole or other support structure.

5. Shall, with respect to its pole-mounted components, conform to the following height restrictions: (a) for installations on existing or replacement joint utility poles, the pole-mounted equipment shall not exceed the minimum separation from electrical lines required by applicable safety regulations, plus four feet; and (b) for all other installations on structures in the public rights-of-way, four feet above the existing support structure.

6. Shall not be permitted with any individual antenna that exceeds three cubic feet in volume or any antennas that cumulatively exceed six cubic feet in volume. The volume calculation shall include the antenna, any radios physically integrated with the antenna, any mounting hardware and any shroud or radome.

7. All accessory equipment installed above ground level shall not cumulatively exceed: (a) nine cubic feet in volume if installed in a residential district; or (b) 17 cubic feet in volume if installed in a non-residential district. The volume calculation shall include any shroud, cabinet or other concealment device used in connection with the accessory equipment. The volume calculation shall not include any equipment or other improvements placed underground.

8. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled or otherwise stored on the pole outside equipment cabinets or shrouds.

9. Shall use flat-rate electric service or other method that obviates the need for a separate above-grade electric meter. If flat-rate service is not available, applicants may install a shrouded smart meter. The city manager shall not approve a separate ground-mounted electric meter pedestal.

10. Shall not permanently displace any landscaping or cause any street trees to be trimmed, damaged or displaced. If any landscaping or street trees are damaged or displaced, the applicant shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to plant and maintain replacement trees at the site for five years or the duration of the permit term (whichever is longer). Likewise, new infrastructure and/or associated equipment shall not prevent the planting or replanting of a street tree in the future.

11 . Shall not encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-of-way without the property owner's express written consent.

12. Shall not encroach onto or over the surface of the roadway within the public rights-of-way.

9 13. Shall not be approved on any existing structure if the additional equipment would reduce the excess structural or wind loading capacity to levels deemed unsafe by generally accepted engineering practices.

14. Shall not be approved if any proposed attachments to a Town-owned pole would encroach upon space reserved for the Town's use or would interfere with the Town's ability to perform its municipal functions.

15. Shall not be approved if the proposed attachments would alter any streetlighting pattern; provided, however, that this provision shall not prevent the Town from approving a new streetlight with illumination patterns that are consistent with the General Plan, the Code, this policy and any standards and specifications promulgated by the City Engineer.

16. Shall not be placed within any sight distance triangles at any intersections.

17. Shall be placed at least 15 feet away from any intersection, alleyway, driveway or established pedestrian pathway to a residential structure appurtenant to the public rights-of-way.

18. Shall not be permitted to use any overhead lines that traverse the roadway, whether the proposed infrastructure deployment is located within an underground utility district or not.

19. Shall not be permitted with permanent standby power generators; provided, however, that the facility may include an Appleton socket or similar connection for a temporary generator that may be permitted during emergencies subject to any other applicable laws.

20. Shall not be permitted in any location that is closer to any residential dwelling than the average front yard setback for properties within 500 feet from the proposed site.

21 . Shall not be permitted if any light or light fixture associated with the deployment shines or illuminates any areas on private properties. All lights and light fixtures must be aimed and shielded so that their illumination effects are directed downwards and confined within the public rights-of-way in a manner consistent with any other standards and specifications by the city engineer. No flashing lights or indicators shall be permitted.

F. The pole-mounted components of a WCF or other infrastructure deployment on a streetlight, traffic signal, utility pole or similar support structure shall, whether on private property or within the public the rights-of-way:

1. Comply with all applicable CPUC General Orders, including Without limitation General Order 95 and General Order 128, as each may be amended or replaced;

10 2. Be consistent with the size and shape of pole-mounted equipment installed on utility poles near the WCF or other infrastructure deployment.

3. Be installed flush to the pole to minimize the overall visual profile. If any applicable health and safety regulations prohibit flush-mounted equipment, the maximum separation permitted between the accessory equipment and the pole shall be the minimum separation required by such regulations, but in no event more than 4 inches from the pole. Any gap between pole-mounted equipment and the pole must be covered by opaque panels (or "wings") that are integrated into the equipment shroud and conceal the gap.

4. Be placed and oriented to minimize the overall visual profile when viewed from properties that abut the public rights-of-way. To that end, pole-mounted equipment may be installed behind street, traffic or other signs to the extent that the installation complies with applicable public health and safety regulations. If all orientations would be equally visible from abutting properties as determined by the city manager, and no existing signage can conceal the attachments, the default orientation will be away from the view of oncoming traffic on the side of the street where the installation is proposed.

5. Not involve external conduits or risers. All cables, wires and other connectors must be routed through conduits within the pole, and all conduit attachments, cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed from public view. To the extent that cables, wires and other connectors cannot be routed through the pole, applicants shall route them through a single external conduit or shroud that has been finished to match the underlying support structure.

6. Shall be centered on the pole and no wider than 1.5 times the diameter of the pole.

7. Shall be mounted so that the lowest portion of the lowest attachment is no less than eight feet above the established grade.

G. The ground-mounted components of a WCF or other infrastructure shall, whether on private property or within the public the rights-of-way:

1. To the extent the structures are utility boxes within the meaning of this Code, be reviewed and subject to the same approvals as utility boxes installed in connection with other infrastructure deployments; and

2. Shall be located flush to grade where necessary to avoid incommoding the public, or creating a hazard;

3. To the extent permitted above ground, shall otherwise be shrouded and painted and textured (or wrapped) to blend with the streetscape and landscape around the site. Whenever possible, above ground equipment components should be placed behind landscaped features in the right-of-way to further conceal the equipment and blend in with the surroundings. Non-reflective paints shall be used on all painted surfaces.

11 4. Equipment shrouds at the base of a pole shall: (a) not exceed 24 inches wide on any side and 48 inches high; (b) be consistent with any standards and specifications by the City Engineer for decorative pole bases or, if no such standards or specifications exist, shall be designed to mimic the pole to which it is attached ; (c) not have any flat surface area on the top of the shroud greater than two square inches to prevent objects from being placed on the shroud; and (d) include a tapered or decorative transition between the top of the base­ mounted shroud and the pole.

H. Unless it is determined that there is no more preferred and technically feasible alternative or it is determined that the town is legally required to approve an application , the city manager may not approve an application for a support structure whose highest point would be more than thirty-five feet above surrounding ground level except as follows:

1. The support structure is an existing support structure, was taller than thirty-five feet above the immediate surrounding ground level on January 1, 2014, and the extension will not be higher than ten feet above the highest point of the support structure or wireless tower and attachments thereto in existence on January 1, 2014;

2. The support structure and all attachments thereto will be concealed, whose height and design is consistent with the surrounding features it mimics.

I. [intentionally omitted from this draft policy]

J. WCFs and other infrastructure deployments shall be designed and located to minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and to maintain the character and appearance of the town, consistent with other provisions of the Code and this policy. To that end, WCFs and other infrastructure deployments should:

1. Employ the smallest and lowest profile equipment, placed in the least conspicuous location when viewed from properties from which the WCF is visible;

2. Accommodate collocation or other future expansions or modifications to the extent feasible and consistent with the other design requirements of this policy; and

3. Be consistent with the general plan.

K. Without limiting the foregoing , all portions of a WCF or other infrastructure deployment affixed to a support structure shall be designed to blend in or be screened from view in a manner consistent with the support structure's arch itectural style, color and materials, when viewed from any part of the town. Visible surfaces on WCFs and other infrastructure deployments shall be painted and textured or otherwise camouflaged to match the color and texture of the support structure on which they are mounted. Where the support structure is a building, the WCF,

12 including without limitation base station cabinets, remote transmitters and receivers, and antenna amplifiers, shall be placed within the building or mounted behind a parapet screened from public view unless that is not feasible. If the city manager determines that such in-building placement is not feasible, the equipment shall be roof-mounted in an enclosure or otherwise screened from public view as approved by the director.

L. WCFs and other infrastructure deployments shall not be lighted except with the authorization of the city manager. The city manager may permit lighting at the lowest intensity necessary:

1. For proximity-triggered and/or timer-controlled security lighting;

2. To comply with regulations for the illumination of the any flag attached to a WCF or other infrastructure deployment; or

3. Where such lighting is required by the city manager to protect public health or welfare, or as part of the concealment for a particular design.

M. No advertising signage shall be displayed on any WCF or other infrastructure except for government required signs shown in the permit application. Additionally, site identification, address, warning and similar information plates may be permitted where approved by the city manager.

N. All infrastructure deployments shall comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), as may be amended or replaced, which includes without limitation maintaining a clear space at the landing of any curb ramp.

0. Infrastructure deployments shall not incommode the public (including without limitation, persons with disabilities) in its use of the public rights-of-way or any structure within or abutting the public rights-of-way or any portion of the public rights-of-way.

P. All new wireless towers and base stations shall be concealed. The installation of an unconcealed wireless tower or base station is prohibited .

Q. Exposed cables and wiring (including without limitation jumpers and other short connectors) are never permitted and must be shrouded. All cables and connectors for telephone, data backhaul, primary electric and other similar utilities must be routed underground in conduits large enough to accommodate future facilities. The approval authority shall not approve new overhead utility lines or service drops merely because compliance with the undergrounding requirements would increase the project cost. For WCFs and other infrastructure deployments in the public rights-of-way, undergrounded cables and wires must transition directly into the pole base without any external doghouse. All cables, wires and connectors between the underground conduits and the antennas and other accessory equipment shall be routed through concealed from view within: (1) internal risers or conduits if on a concrete, composite or similar pole; or (2) a cable shroud or conduit mounted as

13 flush to the pole as possible if on a wood pole or other pole without internal cable space.

R. The Town Council may, upon a recommendation from the city manager, designate certain pre-approved designs consistent with these design standards. Such pre­ approved designs may use a specific manufacturer's or vendor's designs as an illustrative example but shall not specifically require applicants to use any particular manufacturer or vendor so long as their proposal substantially conforms to the physical dimensions and appearance in the pre-approved design. Such pre­ approved designs may be proposed the city manager by a particular service or infrastructure provider but shall be available to all providers who propose a conforming WCF or other infrastructure deployment. Pre-approved designs shall be attached to this policy as exhibits that include, at a minimum, a general description; physical dimensions for the support structure, antenna shroud and accessory equipment shrouds; and photographs that depict required design elements and/or features. Such pre-approved designs may include, without limitation, appropriately designed street directional signs that are consistent with the other provisions in this policy and all other laws applicable to street directional signs.

Conditions of approval.

All permits issued for WCFs and other infrastructure deployments, whether approved in accordance with this Code or deemed-approved or deemed granted by the operation of law, shall be subject to the standard conditions of approval provided in this section. The town council may add, remove or modify any conditions of approval as necessary or appropriate to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare.

A. Within thirty days after installation of a WCF or other infrastructure deployment, the applicant shall deliver to the city manager a written report that demonstrates that its facility as constructed and normally-operating fully complies with the conditions of the permit, including height restrictions, and applicable safety codes, including structural engineering codes. The demonstration shall be provided in writing to the city manager containing all technical details to demonstrate such compliance, and certified as true and accurate by qualified professional engineers, or, in the case of height or size restrictions, by qualified surveyors. This report shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the town at the sole expense of the applicant, which shall promptly reimburse the town for its review expenses. If the facility involves an antenna subject to FCC regulations for RF exposure, the compliance report shall contain additional proofs of RF emission compliance as part of the application process and on an ongoing basis to the extent the town may do so consistent with federal law.

1. If the initial report required by this section shows that the WCF or other infrastructure deployment does not so comply, the permit shall be deemed suspended, and all rights thereunder of no force and effect, until the applicant demonstrates to the town's satisfaction that the WCF or other infrastructure deployment is compliant. Applicant shall promptly reimburse the town for its compliance review expenses.

14 2. If the initial report required by this section is not submitted within the time required, the city manager or its selected and qualified professionals may, but is not required to, undertake such investigations as are necessary to prepare the report described in paragraph A. Applicant shall within five days after receiving written notice from the city manager that the town is undertaking the review, shall deposit such additional funds with the city manager to cover the estimated cost of the town obtaining the report. Once said report is obtained by the town, the town shall then timely refund any unexpended portion of the applicant's deposit. The report shall be provided to the applicant. If the report shows that the applicant is non-compliant, the town may suspend the permit until the applicant demonstrates to the town's satisfaction that the WCF or other infrastructure deployment is compliant. During the suspension period, the applicant shall be allowed to activate any transmitting antenna(s) for short periods, not to exceed one hundred twenty minutes during any twenty-four hour period, for the purpose of testing and adjusting the antennas to come into compliance.

3. If the WCF or other infrastructure deployment is not brought into compliance promptly, the town may revoke the permit and require removal of the facility and all related equipment and improvements to return the site to its original condition before the installation or construction occurred.

B. Any validly-issued WCF permit granted hereunder shall be effective for a period of exactly ten years from the date of issuance, except where a shorter term is authorized by Cal. Gov. Code Section 65964(b) as may be amended or replaced. Any renewal application must be tendered to the city manager between three hundred sixty-five days and one hundred eighty days prior to the expiration of the current WCF permit, and shall be accompanied by all required application materials, fees and deposits for a new WCF application as then in effect.

C. As a condition of every permit issued for an infrastructure deployment, the permit will automatically expire six (6) months from the approval date (the "build-out period") unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved infrastructure facility, which includes without limitation any permits or approvals required by the any federal, state or local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the infrastructure facility or its use. If this build-out period expires, the City will not extend the build-out period but the permittee may resubmit a complete application , including all application fees, for the same or substantially similar project.

D. The permit holder shall also comply with Chapter 12.04 and all other requirements of this Code.

E. The permit holder shall obtain and maintain all other applicable permits, approvals, and agreements necessary to install and operate the infrastructure facility in conformance with federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are

15 intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee's obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the town to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Hillsborough Municipal Code, this policy any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee's obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Hillsborough Municipal Code, this policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation.

F. The town or its agents may inspect permitted infrastructure facility(ies) and property and may enter onto a site to inspect facilities upon reasonable notice to the permit holder. In case of an emergency or risk of imminent harm to persons or property within the vicinity of permitted facilities, the town reserves the right to enter upon the site of the infrastructure facility and to support, disable, or remove those elements of the infrastructure facility posing an immediate threat to public health and safety. The permittee, if present, may observe the town's officers, officials, staff, agents or other designees while any such inspection or emergency access occurs.

G. The permit holder shall maintain on file with the town and onsite at the infrastructure facility contact information of all parties responsible for maintenance of the infrastructure facility.

H. The permit holder and, if applicable, the private property owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the town, its agents, officers, officials, and employees:

1. From any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions or proceedings brought against the town or its agents, officers, officials, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the town's approval of the permit; and

2. From any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities or performance of the permit holder or, if applicable, the private property owner or any of each one's agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors, or independent contractors ((i) and (ii) collectively are "actions"). Further, permit holders shall be strictly liable for interference caused by their WCFs with the town's communications systems. The permit holder shall be responsible for costs of determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference, and all costs arising from third party claims against the town attributable to the interference ("claims"). In the event the town becomes aware of any such actions or claims the town shall promptly notify the permit holder and the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. It is expressly agreed that the town shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the town's defense, and the property owner and/or permit holder (as applicable)

16 shall reimburse town for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the town in the course of the defense.

I. A permit may be terminated if the town determines that the permit was granted based on false, misleading or incomplete information; if a material provision of the permit is no longer enforceable; or if the permit holder violates a condition of the permit, or modifies the infrastructure facility or support structures without permission.

J. The permit holder shall file with the town, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the term of the permit, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security for the removal of the infrastructure facility in the event that the use is abandoned or the permit expires, or is revoked, or is otherwise terminated. The security shall be in the amount equal to one hundred fifteen percent of the cost of physically removing the WCF or other infrastructure deployment and all related facilities and equipment on the site. The permit holder shall reimburse the town for staff time associated with the processing and tracking of the bond, based on established hourly rates. Reimbursement shall be paid when the security is posted.

K. The permit holder shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties. Site improvement and construction work, including set-up, loading or unloading of materials or equipment, performed as part of this project is subject to the provisions of Section 8.32.040. Emergency maintenance and repairs are exempt from the restricted hours. Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a stop work order or administrative citations.

L. In addition to all other standard conditions of approval required under this policy, and to all conditions of approval permitted under state and federal law that the city manager may deem appropriate for a specific infrastructure deployment, all Section 6409(a) modifications, whether granted by the city manager under the federal directive in 47 U.S.C. section 1455(a) or deemed granted by the operation of law, shall automatically include all the conditions of approval as follows:

1. Grant, deemed grant or acceptance of a Section 6409(a) modification permit shall not renew or extend the permit term for the underlying WCF;

2. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction invalidates or limits, in part or in whole, 47 U.S.C. section 1455(a), such that such statute would not mandate approval for the collocation or modification granted or deemed granted under a Section 6409(a) modification permit, such permit shall automatically expire twelve months from the date of that opinion;

3. Grant, deemed grant or acceptance of Section 6409(a) modification permit shall not waive and shall not be construed or deemed to waive the town's standing in a court of competent jurisdiction to challenge 47 U.S.C. Section 1455(a) or any Section 6409(a) modification permit issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 1455(a) or this Code.

17 M. The site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat, clean and safe manner in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times.

N. All facilities utilizing antennas must comply with all standards and regulations relating to RF exposure issued by the FCC or any other federal or state authority authorized to issue such standards and regulations.

0. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within forty-eight hours after notification from the town.

P. All infrastructure facilities within the town shall be designed, maintained, and shall be operated at all times to comply with the provisions of the Code, this policy and the following other requirements:

1. Conditions in any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency, which has jurisdiction over the infrastructure facility;

2. Rules, regulations, and standards of the state and federal governments and the town, including without limitation the FCC, the CPUC and the Code;

3. Easements, covenants, conditions, and/or restrictions on or applicable to the underlying real property;

4. Rules, regulations, and standards of the town governing underground utility districts;

5. All other laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the infrastructure facility, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Q. Without limiting the foregoing , all infrastructure facilities shall be maintained in good working condition and to the visual standards established at the time of approval over the life of the permit as may be extended. The infrastructure facility and surrounding area shall remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism. Any damage shall be repaired as soon as is practicable, and in no instance more than ten calendar days from the time of notification by the town or after discovery by the permit holder. If landscaping was required, the landscaping must be maintained by the permittee.

R. A permit may be revoked if permittee is not in compliance with permit conditions, if the permit conditions are not enforceable, or for a failure to comply with any provision of the Code relating to the permit, or relating to the infrastructure facility associated with the permit ("default event"). By way of example and not limitation, a refusal to timely remove facilities located in the rights-of-way where required in connection with a public works project would be a default event.

1. The city manager may revoke a permit only after: (i) written notice of the default event has been provided to the permit holder; and (ii) the permit holder has

18 been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure and comply with its permit, or demonstrate that no default event occurred.

2. If the permit holder fails to cure, the city council or the city council through a designee shall conduct a noticed public hearing where the permit holder shall be afforded an opportunity to speak and be heard and to provide written material prior to the hearing. If the city council, after the public hearing, finds that the infrastructure facility or the permit holder has violated any law regulating the infrastructure facility or has failed to comply with the requirements of this chapter, the permit, any applicable agreement or any condition of approval the city council may revoke the permit.

3. Upon revocation, the city council may require the removal of the infrastructure facility or take any other legally permissible action or combination of actions necessary to protect the health and welfare of the town.

S. Any permit holder who abandons or discontinues use of an infrastructure facility for a continuous period of ninety days shall so notify the city manager by certified mail within thirty days after the ninety day period.

1. If the city manager believes an infrastructure facility has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of ninety days, the city manager shall send a notice of abandonment or discontinuation to the permit holder stating why the town believes the infrastructure facility to be abandoned or discontinued. Failure of the permit holder to reply to the city manager in writing within thirty days after receiving, rejecting, or returning the town's certified letter shall entitle the city manager to make a determination that the infrastructure facility is, in fact, abandoned or discontinued.

2. Upon declaration of the city manager that the infrastructure facility is abandoned or discontinued, as to private property, the permit holder or owner of the affected real property shall have ninety days from the date of the declaration or a further reasonable time as may be approved by the city manager, within which to complete one of the following actions:

i. Reactivate use of the infrastructure facility;

ii. Transfer the rights to use the infrastructure facility to another entity (who shall be subject to all the provisions of this chapter) and the entity immediately commences use of the infrastructure facility; or

iii. Remove the infrastructure facility and any supporting structures installed solely in connection with the infrastructure facility, and restore the site to be consistent with the then-existing surrounding area.

3. If after the ninety day time period set forth in subsection 1 of this section none of the required actions in subsections 2.i through 2.iii of this section has occurred, the city council at a noticed public hearing may declare that the infrastructure facility is deemed abandoned. The city manager shall provide

19 notice of such finding to the permit holder last known to use the infrastructure facility and, if applicable, to the owner of the affected private real property, providing thirty days from the date of the notice within which to complete one of the following actions:

i. Reactivate use of the infrastructure facility, subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable permit;

ii. Transfer the rights to use the infrastructure facility to another operator (who shall be subject to all the provisions of the Code and this policy); or

iii. Remove the infrastructure facility and any supporting structures installed solely in connection with the infrastructure facility, and restore the site to be consistent with the then-existing surrounding area.

4. If there is no reactivation, transfer or removal as set forth in subsection 3 of this section, the town may thereafter remove the abandoned infrastructure facility, repair any and all damages to the premises caused by such removal, and otherwise restore the premises as is appropriate to be in compliance with applicable codes. If the town removes the infrastructure facility, the town may, but shall not be required to, store the removed infrastructure facility or any part thereof, and may use it, sell it or dispose of it in any manner deemed by the town to be appropriate. The entity that abandoned the infrastructure facility, or its successor in interest, and if on private property, the private property owner shall be jointly liable for the entire cost of such removal, repair, restoration and storage and shall remit payment to the town promptly after demand therefor is made. In addition, the city council, at its option, may utilize any financial security required in conjunction with granting the permit to recover such costs.

5. Until the cost of removal, repair, restoration and storage is paid in full, a lien shall be placed on the infrastructure facility and any related personal property and any private real property on which the WCF was located for the full amount of the cost of removal, repair, restoration and storage. The city clerk shall cause the lien to be recorded with the San Mateo County recorder.

T. After adequate written notice to the permit holder, the city council may require the relocation, at the permit holder's expense and according to the then-existing standards for infrastructure facilities, of any infrastructure facility located in the rights-of-way, as necessary for maintenance or reconfiguration of the town's rights­ of-way or for other public projects, or take any other action or combination of actions necessary to protect the health and welfare of the town.

1. If an existing utility pole that hosts a infrastructure facility must be replaced , the permit holder shall within thirty days after the installation of the replacement pole either relocate its infrastructure facility in the same configuration on the replacement pole, or remove the prior-existing infrastructure facility rather than relocate it, and notify the city manager of the removal, and surrender its permit for cancellation by the city manager.

20 2. If the permit holder fails to relocate or remove the infrastructure facility as required by this subsection, the town may elect to treat the infrastructure facility as a nuisance to be abated as set forth in Section 8.16.035 of the Code.

U. A permit holder shall not assign or transfer any interest in its permit(s) for infrastructure facility(ies) without advance written notice to the town. The notice shall specify the identity of the assignee or transferee of the permit, as well as the assignee or transferee's address, telephone number, name of primary contact person(s), and other applicable contact information, such as an e-mail address or facsimile number. The new assignee or transferee shall comply with all of the permit's terms and conditions of approval, and shall submit to the town a written acceptance of the permit's terms and conditions and a written assumption of the obligations thereafter accruing under such permit prior to the date that such assignment or transfer is intended to take effect.

V. Throughout the permit term, the permittee must maintain a complete and accurate copy of the written administrative record, which includes without limitation the permit application, the approved permit, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into the approval, all conditions associated with this approval, any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval and any records, memoranda, documents, papers and other correspondence entered into the public record in connection with the permit (collectively, "records"). If the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved by inspecting the missing records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee shall protect all records from damage from fires, floods and other hazards that may cause deterioration. The permittee may keep records in an electronic format; provided, however, that hard copies or electronic records kept in the town's regular files will control over any conflicts between such town-controlled copies or records and the permittee's electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. The requirements in this condition shall not be construed to create any obligation to create or prepare any records not otherwise required to be created or prepared by other applicable laws. Compliance with the requirements in this condition shall not excuse the permittee from any other similar record-retention obligations under applicable law.

W. The permittee shall replace any landscape features damaged or displaced by the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or other work performed by the permittee or at the permittee's direction on or about the site. If any trees are damaged or displaced, the permittee shall hire and pay for a licensed arborist to select, plant and maintain replacement landscaping in an appropriate location for the species. Only International Society of Arboriculture certified workers under the supervision of a licensed arborist shall be used to install the replacement tree(s). Any replacement tree must be substantially the same size as the damaged tree. The type, size and location for a replacement tree shall be subject to the city manager's approval. The permittee shall, at all times, be responsible to maintain any replacement landscape features.

21 X. The permittee acknowledges and agrees that (i) the permittee's request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility will cause the Town to incur costs and expenses; (ii) the permittee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs incurred in connection with the permit, which includes without limitation costs related to application review, permit issuance, site inspection and any other costs reasonably related to or caused by the request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility; (iii) any application fees required for the application may not cover all such reimbursable costs and that the permittee shall have the obligation to reimburse City for all such costs 10 days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs; and (iv) the City shall have the right to withhold any permits or other approvals in connection with the wireless facility until and unless any outstanding costs have been reimbursed to the City by the permittee.

Y. Notwithstanding any term remaining on any WCF permit, if other utilities or communications providers in the public rights-of-way underground their facilities in the segment of the public rights-of-way where the permittee's facility is located, the permittee must also underground its equipment, except the antennas and any approved electric meter, at approximately the same time. Accessory equipment such as radios and computers that require an environmentally controlled underground vault to function shall not be exempt from this condition. WCFs installed on wood utility poles that will be removed pursuant to the undergrounding program may be reinstalled on a streetlight that complies with the town's standards and specifications or other fully concealed pre-approved design pursuant to Section R of this policy. Such undergrounding shall occur at the permittee's sole cost and expense except as may be reimbursed through tariffs approved by the state public utilities commission for undergrounding costs.

Z. If the commercial electric utility provider adopts or changes its rules obviating the need for a separate or ground-mounted electric meter and enclosure, the permittee on its own initiative and at its sole cost and expense shall remove the separate or ground-mounted electric meter and enclosure. Prior to removing the electric meter, the permittee shall apply for any encroachment and/or other ministerial permit(s) required to perform the removal. Upon removal, the permittee shall restore the affected area to its original condition that existed prior to installation of the equipment.

AA. The permittee acknowledges that the Town, in its sole discretion and at any time, may: (i) change any street grade, width or location; (ii) add, remove or otherwise change any improvements in, on , under or along any street owned by the Town or any other public agency, which includes without limitation any sewers, storm drains, conduits, pipes, vaults, boxes, cabinets, poles and utility systems for gas, water, electric or telecommunications; and/or (iii) perform any other work deemed necessary, useful or desirable by the Town (collectively, "Town work"). The Town reserves the rights to do any and all Town work without any admission on its part that the Town would not have such rights without the express reservation in this permit. If the Public Works Director determines that any Town work will require the permittee's facility located in the public rights-of-way to be rearranged and/or

22 relocated, the permittee shall, at its sole cost and expense, do or cause to be done all things necessary to accomplish such rearrangement and/or relocation. If the permittee fails or refuses to either permanently or temporarily rearrange and/or relocate the permittee's facility within a reasonable time after the Public Works Director's notice, the Town may (but will not be obligated to) cause the rearrangement or relocation to be performed at the permittee's sole cost and expense. The Town may exercise its rights to rearrange or relocate the permittee's facility without prior notice to permittee when the Public Works Director determines that the Town work is immediately necessary to protect public health or safety. The permittee shall reimburse the Town for all costs and expenses in connection with such work within 10 days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs.

23 STAFF REPORT

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Danielle Staude, Senior Planner~

SUBJECT: Introduction of Urgency Ordinance No 18-__ Amending the Mill Valley Municipal Code to add Chapter 20.73 establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Regulations and Amending Mill Valley Municipal Code Sections 11.16.100; 20.24.020; 20.26.020; 20.36.030; 20.40.030; 20.52.020; and 20.56.030 to incorporate Wireless Telecommunication Facilities.

DATE: September 6, 2018

1 Approved for Forwarding: 2 3 4 5 6 ISSUE: 7 Consideration of an urgency ordinance modifying Title 20 "Zoning" of the Mill Valley 8 Municipal Code ("Zoning Code"), adding Section 20.73 "Wireless Telecommunications 9 Facilities Regulations" establishing comprehensive regulations for the installation, 10 operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications within the City on private 11 property and within the City right-of-way. 12 13 RECOMMENDATION: 14 Receive presentation, introduce and adopt the urgency ordinance (ATTACHMENT 1) 15 with a four-fifths vote. 16 17 BACKGROUND: 18 As the wireless telecommunications industry works to meet the growing demand for 19 broadband and data services, service providers are seeking to deploy smaller cell and 20 distributed antenna systems (also known as "DAS''), with many of these facilities 21 installed in the public right-of-way. The Mill Valley Municipal Code does not currently 22 provide regulations specific to the installation, operation and maintenance of wireless 23 telecommunication facilities. 24 25 1 Item 8 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

26 Federal La,w 27 Both federal and state laws preempt local authority to regulate certain aspects of wireless 28 telecommunications facilities, including regulations related to: 29 • radio frequency or electromagnetic waves that comply with FCC regulations, the 30 collocation on existing wireless telecommunications facilities, 31 • certain modifications to existing wireless telecommunications facilities, and 32 • the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities on existing utility poles 33 in the public rights of way. 34 Key among these limitations is that local regulations cannot have the effect of prohibiting 35 the provision of personal wireless services. These laws, however, preserve local authority 36 to regulate the placement, construction and aesthetics of wireless telecommunications 37 facilities. 38 39 Federal law also requires the City to act on an application for wireless telecommunication 40 facilities within a limited amount of time. These "shot clocks" provide the City: 41 • 60 days to act on an application for an eligible facility that does not substantially 42 change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless telecommunication 43 facilities tower or base station; 44 • 90 days to act on an application for a collocation facility; and 45 • 150 days to act on all other applications. 46 These timeframes may change with federal laws. As such the actual "shot clock" and/or 47 timeframes are not discussed in the .ordinance, but will be provided as part of the 48 application and informational handouts. 49 50 Urgency Ordinance 51 The proposed urgency ordinance is intended to prescribe clear and re.asonable 'criteria to 52 process applications for wireless telecommunications facilities in a consistent and 53 expeditious manner and within the limits of federal and state law. 54 55 This proposed ordinance provides an extensive and comprehensive list of procedures and 56 regulations that allow the community, applicant and internal City Departments to 57 understand how facilities are regulated, installed, maintained and operate within the City. 58 The regulations contained in the proposed ordinance: 59 1. Ensures that the FCC standards regulating radio frequency emissions are strictly 60 followed. 61 2. Establishes an application process for a conditional use permit (CUP) and design 62 review. 63 3. Limits the location of new or updated wireless facilities to private property within 64 commercial zoning districts (outside of single family and multi-family residential 65 districts) and the public right-of-way with an order of preference in terms of 66 location within commercial areas and configuration aimed toward existing 67 facilities. 68 4. Limits the installation of new wireless facilities in the public right-of-way to 69 existing poles that must be 1,500 feet away from the nearest facility.

2 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

70 5. Establishes design standards for the appearance and maintenance of facilities, 71 including limiting the height and bulk of facilities and requires the concealment of 72 accessory equipment to the extent feasible. 73 6. Imposes strict noise standards. 74 7. Where feasible, requires upgrades to existing facilities as new technology 75 becomes available to replace larger more visually intrusive facilities with smaller 76 facilities. 77 8. Requires the relocation of any facility in the public right-of-way that would 78 interfere with a future public project or improvements. 79 9. Requires a performance bond to ensure that facilities are promptly removed when 80 they are no longer permitted or needed. 81 10. Requires the permittee to defend and indemnify the City from any liabilities 82 arising from the permits issued by the City and the installation, operation and 83 maintenance of the facilities. 84 85 The ordinance is being proposed as an urgency ordinance which would be adopted 86 pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b). Under that section, ordinances adopted 87 to protect the health, safety, and welfare with a four-fifths vote of the City Council 88 become effective immediately adoption by 4/5ths vote is required by state law). Given 89 the increased interest in construction of small-cell facilities in the public right-of-way, it 90 is critical that the City update its regulations to reflect current federal and state law and 91 recent trends in wireless facilities. The adoption of urgency standards will ensure that the 92 City is able to limit disruption to the public right-of-way as well as impose aesthetic 93 regulations on new facilities. 94 95 Staff is also working to establish permanent regulations which require additional public 96 notice, Planning Commission and City Council review, followed by City Council 97 adoption. 98 99 DISCUSSION: 100 The proposed urgency ordinance provides uniform and comprehensive regulations for the 101 permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of 102 wireless telecommunications facilities in the City. The ordinance is similar to recent 103 regulations enacted in San Anselmo and Ross. The ordinance also imposes some 104 additional requirements on telecommunications facilities that are pole mounted to the 105 existing public utility infrastructure (known as "small cell wireless facilities") based on 106 community interest and recent regulations established in Petaluma (see staff report, lines 107 171-205). 108 109 Applicable Projects (20.73.030) 110 The urgency ordinance becomes effective immediately. Those applications not approved 111 prior to the effective date of the urgency ordinance will be subject to the regulations. All 112 other wireless facilities currently in operation will also be subject to the new regulations 113 with regard to operation, maintenance and use. 114 115 116 3 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

117 118 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Required (20.73.040) 119 The permitting process described in the table below reflects the requirements of federal 120 and state law, which mandate ministerial approval of collocations on and minor 121 modifications to existing wireless telecommunications facilities. 122 Private Public Property Right-of Way Description Wireless Facility RS, RSP, DR, RM All Other Zoning Al/Zoning Zoning Districts Districts Districts Roof-mounted facility, building- Conditional Use Conditional Use mounted facility, or facility mounted Not Permitted Permit/ Design Permit/ Design on an existing pole Review Review Facility mounted on a replacement Conditional Use Conditional Use pole or new telecommunications Not Permitted Permit/ Design Permit/ Design tower Review Review Conditional Use Conditional Use New wireless telecommunications Not Permitted Permit/ Design Permit/ Design collocation facility Review Review Eligible facilities request 1 or application pursuant to California Permitted Permitted Permitted Government Code Section 65850.6 2 1 See requirements of section 20.73.140. 2 See requirements of section 20.73.150. 123 124 Application for CUP Permit (20.73.050) 125 The proposed ordinance prescribes the content for an application for a wireless 126 telecommunications facility permit. The application requires the submission of detailed 127 site and engineering plans, photographs of facility equipment, a visual impact analysis with 128 photo simulations, a noise study, documentation demonstrating compliance with the FCC 129 standards for radio frequency emissions, and certification that the applicant has a right 130 under state law to install facilities in the public right-of-way if that is the proposed location 131 of the facilities. Also, the City may hire a technical consultant to assist the City in the 132 review of the application at the expense of the applicant. 133 134 Based on existing provisions of the City's Zoning Code, initial wireless facility CUP 135 applications will be heard by the Planning Commission. Smaller subsequent amendments 136 to wireless facility CUPs, such as modifying or collocating equipment, will undergo 137 Zoning Administrator approval. Amendments to CUPs that involve significant design 138 review issues, or are deemed as significant projects by the Planning Director will be heard 139 by Planning Commission. There are also specific design standards, findings and conditions 140 of approval required as part of the approval process for these applications (discussed 141 below). 142 143

4 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

144 Location and Configuration Preferences (20.73.060) 145 The proposed ordinance establishes preferences in terms of location and configuration of 146 wireless facilities. 147 148 Configuration preferences are as follows: 149 1. Collocation with existing facilities, 150 2. Roof-mounted, 151 3. Building-mounted, 152 4. Mounted on an existing utility pole or a new utility pole that will replace an 153 existing utility pole, 154 5. Mounted on a new telecommunication tower. 155 156 Location preferences are as follows: 157 1. Commercial zoning districts (CG, CN, CL, CD), 158 2. Public right-of-way within commercial zoning districts, 159 3. Public right-of-way within RM zoning districts, 160 4. Mounted on a new telecommunication tower. 161 162 Design and Development Standards for All Facilities (20.73.070) 163 The proposed ordinance provides specific guidance on the design techniques for 164 camouflaging wireless facilities, and set development standards including the preference in 165 collocating facilities, landscaping screening, signage, lighting, noise restrictions, and 166 security requirements. 167 168 Additional Standards for Facilities Outside the Public Right-of-Way (20. 73.080) 169 Additional design and development standards are identified for wireless facility 170 applications that are outside the right-of-way including the requirement that the facility 171 cannot interfere with designated parking spaces and additional screening criteria for roof 172 mounted facilities, towers and accessory equipment. 173 174 Additional Standards for Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (20.73.060-090) 175 Additional design and development standards are identified for wireless facility 176 applications that are inside the right-of-way including establishing maximum height 177 limits on utility and streetlight poles for antennas, occupation of space, obtaining an 178 encroachment permit, and adhering to Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 179 Compliance, and specific development standards. 180 181 Additional design and development standards have been incorporated based on the City 182 of Petaluma's recently adopted ordinance, and interest from some community members 183 that are concerned about potential health impacts associated with pole mounted wireless 184 facilities (see ATTACHMENT 2 for public comments). Staff has incorporated a distance 185 requirement (1,500 ft. apart) for pole mounted telecommunications facilities, but has not 186 gone as far as establishing a restriction on the proximity of pole mounted wireless 187 telecommunication to any residence. The City of Petaluma also establishes a 500 foot 188 buffer from any residence as part of its ordinance. Due to the size and scale of Mill 189 Valley, staff recommends moving forward with the followin? standards. and 190 incorporating a buffer, if legally feasible, as part of the regular ordinance. Additional 5 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

191 research is required to ensure that such a regulation does not essentially create a ban on 192 such facilities within the City and expose the City to potential litigation. In the meantime, 193 the urgency ordinance provides a 1,500 foot buffer from each small cell facility and 194 prohibits such facilities in residential and multi-family zoning districts. 195 196 The requirements indicate that wireless facilities in the right-of-way must: 197 1. Connect to an existing utility pole that can support its weight. 198 2. Be separated by at least 1,500 feet. 199 3. Install all new wires needed to service the telecommunications facility within 200 the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and 201 height of the existing utility pole. 202 4. Underground (flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole), all 203 ground-mounted equipment not installed inside the pole. 204 5. Conceal all equipment. Aside from the transmitter/antenna itself, no additional 205 equipment may be visible. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical 206 and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the telecommunications 207 tower and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible without 208 jeopardizing the physical integrity of the tower. 209 210 Conditions of Approval (20.73.100-110) and Findings for Approval (20.73.120) 211 The proposed ordinance outlines findings and conditions of approval for granting the 212 design review and CUP applications, with additional specific conditions for those use 213 permits in the right-of-way. The CUP expires in 10 years unless renewals are approved by 214 the City. 215 216 Exceptions (20.73.130) 217 The proposed ordinance allows an applicant to request an exception from the standards in 218 the event that denial of a permit would violate federal or state law. The applicant has the 219 burden of providing sufficient facts to support the request. 220 221 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Covered under Section 6409(a) of the Middle 222 Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (20.73.140) 223 This Section applies to all collocations or modifications to an existing wireless tower or 224 base station submitted with a written request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). 225 Section 6409(a) generally requires that State and local governments " ... not deny, and shall 226 approve" requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an existing 227 tower or base station. Such applications undergo administrative review, and the proposed 228 ordinance outlines required findings for approval, denial, and appeal procedure. 229 230 Collocation Facilities Covered under CA Government Code Section 65850.6 (20.73.150) 231 This section provides the requirements, standards and regulations for a wireless 232 telecommunications collocation facility for which subsequent collocation is a permitted use 233 pursuant to California law. 234 235 Additional Requirements (20.73.160-240)

'.236 Additional regulations are estahlished in the remainder of the orc-Jinance including husiness 237 license and encroachment permit requirements, emergency deployment, operation and 6 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

238 maintenance standards, permit expiration, cessation of use/abandonment, removal of 239 equipment) 240 241 EFFECTIVE DATE/NEXT STEPS: 242 The urgency ordinance would become effective immediately. Staff's intent is to 243 implement the urgency ordinance swiftly due to recent inquiries from the wireless 244 industry to upgrade facilities. Staff intends to utilize the urgency ordinance as a means of 245 communication, and to obtain feedback from interested parties, including the local 246 community and wireless industry, as part of the public hearing process for development 247 of a permanent ordinance. Staff plans to bring the regular ordinance to City Council early 248 in 2019, with a projected effective date of approximately March 2019. 249 250 RECENT CORRESPONDENCE: 251 Staff has received over 150 e-mails from the community. Five of the letters are in support 252 of the new wireless technology, the remaining pieces of correspondence express concern 253 about the possible health impacts related to the wireless 4G and 5G technology, and are 254 urging the City to maintaining local control over the placement, maintenance and operation 255 of wireless telecommunications. See ATTACHMENT 2 for details. 256 257 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 258 The proposed amendments to MVMC, Chapter 20 "Zoning" are exempt from the 259 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The proposed Ordinance does not 260 constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 261 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that small cell 262 facility regulations will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical 263 change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because they have no 264 potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably 265 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed 266 Ordinances and Resolution comprise a project for CEQA analysis, the ordinance falls 267 within the "common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 268 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no 269 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." 270 Adoption of this Ordinance will also enact only minor changes in land use regulations, 271 and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption will not have a significant effect on the 272 environment because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded 273 wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously 274 allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. Finally, the wireless facilities 275 themselves are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which 276 exempts minor encroachment permits, and Section 15303, which exempts the installation 277 of small equipment and facilities in a small structure. 278 279 FISCAL IMPACT: 280 The fiscal impacts associated with the Ordinance are the costs associated with the City 281 Attorney and staff time to prepare the Ordinance and staff report. Once the regulations are 282 adopted and implemented, the application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Design 283 Review would cover the cost of the discretionary approvals. 284 GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: 7 Urgency Telecommunications Ordinance September 6, 2018

285 Adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General 286 Plan provides goals and policies to preserve the high-quality design, small-town character, 287 aesthetics and environmental characteristics while also maintaining a strong, healthy 288 economy for its local business and assuring the health and safety of the predominantly 289 residential character of the community. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide uniform 290 and comprehensive regulations and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities in 291 furtherance of these goals and objectives while reducing the potentially negative impacts. 292 293 ATTACHMENTS: 294 1. Ordinance 295 2. Recent Correspondence (over 150 e-mails received most of which are form letters, 296 please contact planner to view all emails on file, or download all comments online at 297 http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/gov/agendas/watchonline.htm--go to "upcoming 298 meetings", locate the City Council tab and select the September 6, 2018 meeting. 299

8 CITY OF MILL VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. 18------AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MILL VALLEYAMENDING TITLE20 ("ZONING") OF THEMILL VALLEYMUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER20.73 AND AMEND SECTIONS 11.16.100; 20.24.020; 20.26.020; 20.36.030; 20.40.030; 20.52.020; and 20.56.030 ESTABLISHINGREGULATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES

1 WHEREAS,_This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government 2 Code Section 36937(b). The facts constituting the urgency are as follows: 3 4 (1) The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City's Municipal Code to provide 5 uniform and comprehensive standards, regulations and permit requirements for the installation 6 of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City's public right-of-way. 7 8 (2) The wireless telecommunications industry has expressed interest in submitting 9 applications for the installation of "small cell" wireless telecommunications facilities in the 10 City's public rights-of-way of the City. Other California cities have already received applications 11 for small cells to be located within the public right-of-way. 12 13 (3) Installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within 14 the public right-of-way can pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including 15 disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless facilities; 16 traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; impacts to 17 trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require 18 removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines; land use 19 conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height or poles and towers; creation of visual 20 and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or 21 lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment 22 and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to 23 utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities which may 24 negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City. 25 26 (4) The City currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities in the public 27 right-of-way through zoning and the encroachment permit process. The existing standards 28 have not bee n updated to reflect current telecommunications trends or necessary legal 29 requirements. Further the primary focus of the zoning regulations is wireless 30 te.lecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions 31 were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and practical issues that arise in 32 connection with wireless telecommunications facilities deployed in the public right-of-way.

1

ATTACHMENT 1 33 (5) The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares invalid all 34 state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone 35 service. 36 37 (6) The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is primarily responsible for the 38 implementation of local telephone competition and the CPUC issues certificates of public 39 convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local 40 telephone exchange services and related telecommunications service, whether using their own 41 facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations. 42 43 (7) Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a "telephone 44 corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any 45 telephone line for compensation within this state." 46 47 (8) Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a telephone 48 corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its 49 telephone line." so 51 (9) Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes municipal 52 corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships 53 between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, 54 and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets 55 by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility 56 on, under, or above any public streets. 57 58 (10) Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes telephone and 59 telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public 60 road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, 61 posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of 62 their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road 63 or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. 64 65 (11) Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right of 66 municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, 67 highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an 68 equivalent manner, and may involve the imposition of fees. 69 70 (12) Section 50030 of the California Government Code provides that any permit fee 71 imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications 72 facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all 73 required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide telecommunications services, 74 must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and 75 must not be levied for general revenue purposes.

2 76 (13) State and federal law have changed substantially since the City last adopted 77 regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities in the City. Such changes include 78 modifications to 11shot clocks" whereby the City must approve or deny installations within a 79 certain period of time. State and federal laws require local governments to act on permit 80 applications for wireless facilities within a prescribed time period and may automatically deem 81 an application approved when a failure to act occurs. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); 47 C.F.R. 82 §§ 1.40001 et seq.; Cal. Gov't Code § 65964.1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 83 may require a decision on certain applications in as few as 60 days. See 47 C.F.R. 84 § l.40001(c)(2); see also In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving 85 Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Red. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014) 86 [hereinafter 11 2014 Report and Order"]; In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to 87 Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review, Declaratory Ruling, 24 88 FCC Red. 13994 (Nov. 18, 2009) [hereinafter "2009 Declaratory Ruling"]. Pursuant to FCC 89 regulations, the City cannot adopt a moratorium ordinance to toll the time period for review for 90 certain type of facilities, even when needed to allow the City to maintain the status quo while it 91 reviews and revises its policies for compliance with changes in state or federal law. See 47 92 C.F.R. § 1.4000l(c)(3); 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Red. at 219, 265. The City is in immediate 93 need of clear regulations for wireless installations in the public right-of-way given the number 94 of anticipated applications and legal timelines upon which the City must act. 95 96 (14) The public right-of-way in the City is a uniquely valuable public resource, closely 97 linked with the City's natural beauty including the beach and coastline, and significant number 98 residential communities. The reasonably regulated and orderly deployment of wireless 99 telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or 100 disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and 101 safety of the community. 102 103 (15) The regulations of wireless installations in the public right-of-way are necessary 104 to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community, as well as the values of properties 105 within the City, and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using 106 the least intrusive means possible. 107 108 (16) The City finds that in light of more recent developments in federal and state law 109 with respect to the regulation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities, 110 there is a need for the City to update its current ordinances based on current 111 telecommunications trends, updates in laws, as well as aesthetic and location options for 112 wireless facilities. The City Council also finds that the lack of specifically-designed standards 113 and regulations in the Municipal Code for wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way, 114 the increasing requests for information about the City's regulation of wireless 115 telecommunications facilities, the inability to adopt a temporary moratorium, and the potential 116 liabilities and negative consequences for noncompliance with state and federal regulations 117 (including, without limitation, automatic approvals) present current and immediate threat to 118 the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council further finds and declares that the

3 119 immediate implementation of the Ordinance is necessary to preserve and protect public health, 120 safety and welfare. 121 122 (17) The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications 123 Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the 124 law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the 125 public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have 126 the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service; rather, but includes appropriate 127 regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless 128 telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to 129 lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and 130 the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible 131 against the safety and land use concerns described herein. 132 133 Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the immediate 134 preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this Ordinance be enacted as 135 an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), and take effect 136 immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate 137 preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared. 138 139 WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan. The 140 City's General Plan provides goals and policies to preserve the high-quality design, small-town 141 character, aesthetics and environmental characteristics while also maintaining a strong, 142 healthy economy for its local business and assuring the health and safety of the predominantly 143 residential character of the community. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide uniform and 144 comprehensive regulations and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities in 145 furtherance of these goals and objectives while reducing the potentially negative impacts. 146 147 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Mill Valley City Council does ordain as follows: 148 149 Section 1. The Mill Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 150 151 A. A new Section 20.73, entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" is hereby 152 added to Title 18 of the Mill Valley Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A to this 153 Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. 154 155 B. Section 11.16.100 (Blan ket Perm its for Certain Applicants) is hereby amended to 156 include the following subsection: 157 "D. Notwithstanding Subsection A of this Section, no Wireless Telecommunications 158 Facility governed by Chapter 20.73 shall be installed or maintained pursuant to a blanket 159 permit." 160

4 161 C. Section 20.24.020 of Chapter 20.24 (Residential Multifamily (RM-3.5) District) is 162 hereby amended to include the following conditional use: 163 "N. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 164 165 D. Section 20.26.020 of Chapter 20.26 (Downtown Residential (DR) District) is 166 hereby amended to include the following conditional use as part of the proposed table: 167 "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 168 169 E. Section 20.36.030 of Chapter 20.36 (Limited Commercial (C-L) District) is hereby 170 amended to include the following conditional use: 171 "E. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 172 173 F. Section 20.40.030 of Chapter 20.40 (General Commercial (C-G) District) is hereby 174 amended to include the following conditional use: 175 "AA. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 176 177 G. Section 20.52.020 of Chapter 20.52 (Commercial Recreational (C-R) District) is 178 hereby amended to include the following conditional use: 179 "I. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 180 181 H. Section 20.56.030 of Chapter 20.56 (Open Area (O-A) District) is hereby amended 182 to include the following conditional use: 183 "H. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as further outlined in 20.73." 184 185 Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that Adoption of this Ordinance will enact 186 only minor changes in land use regulations, and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption 187 will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not allow for the 188 development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other 189 than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. 190 The wireless facilities themselves are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 191 15305, which exempts minor encroachment permits, and Section 15303, which exempts the 192 installation of small equipment and facilities in a small structure. The proposed Ordinance also 193 falls within the "common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 194 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility 195 that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." 196 197 Section 3. Severa bilit y. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word 198 of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the 199 decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such 200 decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 201 The City Council of the City of Mill Valley hereby declares that it would have adopted this 202 Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word thereof, regardless

5 203 of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or word might 204 subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. 205 206 Section 4. Notice. The City clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this 207 Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be posted within 15 days after its passage, in 208 accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code. 209 210 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance for 211 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety within the meaning of 212 Government Code Section 36937(b) and therefore shall be passed immediately upon its 213 introduction and shall become effective immediately, and shall be posted in three public places 214 in the City. 215 216 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mill Valley on the 217 6th day of September, 2018, and 218 219 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mill Valley 220 on this 6th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: 221 222 AYES: 223 NOES: 224 ABSENT: 225 226 ABSTAIN: 227 228 229 230 Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Mayor 231 232 ATTEST: 233 234 235 236 Kelsey Rogers, City Clerk

6 Exhibit A URGENCY ORDINANCE

Chapter 20.73 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

1 20.73.010 Purpose

2 A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of 3 regulations and standards for the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation 4 and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Mill Valley. These 5 regulations are intended to prescribe clear and reasonable criteria to assess and process 6 applications in a consistent and expeditious manner, while reducing the impacts associated with 7 wireless telecommunications facilities. This chapter provides standards necessary to: (1) preserve 8 and promote harmonious land uses and the public right-of-way in the City; (2) promote and protect 9 public health and safety, community welfare, visual resources, and the aesthetic quality of the City 10 consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan; (3) provide for the orderly, 11 managed, and efficient development of wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with 12 the state and federal laws, rules, and regulations; and (4) encourage new and more efficient 13 technology in the provision of wireless telecommunications facilities.

14 B. This chapter is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: (1) prohibit or 15 effectively prohibit any personal wireless service provider's ability to provide personal wireless 16 services; (2) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity's ability to provide any interstate or intrastate 17 telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules or 18 regulation for rights-of-way management; (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of 19 functionally equivalent services; (4) deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify 20 personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency 21 emissions to the extent that such wireless facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning 22 such emissions; (5) prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal 23 or state law; or (6) otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law.

24 20.73.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following defined terms shall have 25 the meaning set forth in this section unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different 26 meaning.

27 A. "Accessory Equipment" means any equipment associated with the installation of a wireless 28 t elecommunications facility, including but not limited to cabling, generators, air conditioning units, 29 electrical panels, equipment shelters, equipment cabinets, equipment buildings, pedestals, meters, 30 vaults, splice boxes, and surface location markers.

31 B. "Antenna" means that part of a wireless telecommunications facility designed to radiate or 32 receive radio frequency signals or electromagnetic waves for the provision of services, including, but 33 not limited to, cellular, paging, personal communications services (PCS) and microwave

Exhibit A, Page 1 34 communications. Such devices include, but are not limited to, directional antennas, such as panel 35 antenna, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes; omnidirectional antennas; wireless access points 36 (Wi-Fi); and strand-mounted wireless access points. This definition does not apply to broadcast 37 antennas, antennas designed for amateur radio use, or satellite dishes designed for residential or 38 household purposes.

39 C. "Base Station" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(l), as may be 40 amended, which defines that term as a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC- 41 licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications 42 network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(9) or any 43 equipment associated with a tower. The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated 44 with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well 45 as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. The term 46 includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and 47 backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration 48 (including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks). The term includes any structure 49 other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local 50 government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 51 1.40001(b)(l)(i)-(ii) that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting 52 process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not 53 built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. The term does not include any 54 structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under 55 this section, does not support or house equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001{b)(l)(i)-(ii).

56 D. "Building-mounted" means mounted to the side or fa~ade, but not the roof, of a building or 57 another structure such as a water tank, pump station, church steeple, freestanding sign, or similar 58 structure.

59 E. "Cellular" means an analog or digital wireless telecommunications technology that is based 60 on a system of interconnected neighboring cell sites.

61 F. "Collocation" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001{b)(2), as may be 62 amended, which defines that term as the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an 63 eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio frequency signals for 64 communications purposes. As an illustration and not a limitation, the FCC's definition effectively 65 means "to add" and does not necessarily refer to more than one wireless telecommunication facility 66 installed at a single site.

67 G. "Eligible Facilities Request" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 68 1.40001(b)(3), as may be amended, which defines that term as any request for modification of an 69 existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such 70 tower or base station, involving: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of 71 transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment.

Exhibit A, Page 2 72 H. "Eligible Support Structure" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 73 1.40001{b)(4), as may be amended, which defines that term as any tower or base station as defined 74 in this section, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the State 75 or local government under this section.

76 I. "Existing" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(4), as may be 77 amended, which provides that a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of the 78 FCC's Section 6409(a) regulations if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning 79 or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower 80 that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but 81 was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.

82 J. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or its duly appointed successor 83 agency.

84 K. "Modification" means any change to an existing wireless telecommunications facility that 85 involves any of the following: collocation, expansion, modification, alteration, enlargement, 86 intensification, reduction, or augmentation, including, but not limited to, a change in size, shape, 87 color, visual design, or exterior material. Modification does not include repair, replacement, or 88 maintenance if those actions do not involve a change to the existing facility involving any of the 89 following: collocation, expansion, modification, alteration, enlargement, intensification, reduction, 90 or augmentation.

91 L. "Monopole" means a structure consisting of a single pole used to support antennas or 92 related equipment and includes a monopine, monoredwood, and similar monopoles camouflaged to 93 resemble trees or other objects.

94 M. "Personal Wireless Services" means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i), as 95 may be amended, which defines the term as commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless 96 services and common carrier wireless exchange access services.

97 N. "Personal Wireless Service Facilities" means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 98 332(c)(7)(C)(i), as may be amended, which defines the term as facilities that provide personal 99 wireless services.

100 0. "Zoning administrator" means the City zoning administrator or the City zoning 101 administrator's designee.

102 P. "Pole" means a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete, or other material capable of supporting 103 the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and as required by provisions of 104 the Mill Valley Municipal Code .

105 Q. "Public Right-of-Way or "Right-of-Way" means any public street, public way, public alley or 106 public place, laid out or dedicated, and the space on, above or below it, and all extensions thereof, 107 and additions thereto, under the jurisdiction of the City.

Exhibit A, Page 3 108 R. "Reviewing Authority" means the person or body who has the authority to review and 109 either grant or deny a wireless telecommunications facility permit pursuant to this chapter.

110 s. "RF" means radio frequency or electromagnetic waves between 30 kHz and 300 GHz in the 111 electromagnetic spectrum range.

112 T. "Roof-mounted" means mounted directly on the roof of any building or structure, above the 113 eave line of such building or structure.

114 U. "Section 6409(a)" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 115 of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), as such law may be 116 amended from time to time.

117 V. "Section 6409(a) Approval" means the approval required by Section 6409(a).

118 W. "Site" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b}(6}, as may be 119 amended, which provides that for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current 120 boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility 121 easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted 122 to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on 123 the ground.

124 X. "Substantial Change" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § -1.40001(b)(7), as 125 may be amended, which defines that term differently based on the particular wireless facility type 126 (tower or base station) and location (in or outside the public right-of-way). For clarity, this definition 127 organizes the FCC's criteria and thresholds for a substantial change according to the wireless facility 128 type and location.

129 1. For towers outside the public rights-of-way, a substantial change occurs when:

130 a) the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% 131 or the height of one additional antenna array not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is 132 greater); or

133 b) the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 20 feet from 134 the edge of the wireless tower or the width of the wireless tower at the level of the 135 appurtenance (whichever is greater); or

136 c) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the 137 standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed 138 four; or

139 d) the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current 140 boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, 141 including any access or utility easements currently related to the site.

Exhibit A, Page 4 142 2. For towers in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations, a substantial change 143 occurs when:

144 a) the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% 145 or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or

146 b) the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 6 feet from 147 the edge of the wireless tower or base station; or

148 c) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new 149 equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground-mounted 150 equipment cabinets; or

151 d) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground- 152 mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent (10%) larger in height or volume 153 than any existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or

154 e) the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in 155 proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on 156 the ground.

157 3. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change 158 occurs when:

159 a) the proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment 160 elements of the support structure as determined by the zoning administrator; or

161 b) the proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval, 162 provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of 163 approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is 164 inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this section.

165 The thresholds for a substantial change outlined above are disjunctive. The failure to meet any one 166 or more of the applicable thresholds means that a substantial change would occur. The thresholds 167 for height increases are cumulative limits. For sites with horizontally separated deployments, the 168 cumulative limit is measured from the originally-permitted support structure without regard to any 169 increases in size due to wireless equipment not included in the original design. For sites with 170 vertically separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the permitted site 171 dimensions as they existed on February 22, 2012-the date that Congress passed Section 6409(a).

172 Y. "Telecommunications Tower" or "Tower'' means a freestanding mast, pole, monopole, 173 guyed tower, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structure designed and primarily used to 174 support wireless telecommunications facility antennas.

175 Z. "Transmission Equipment" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 176 1.40001 (b)(8), els ma y be a me nded, which defines t hat term as equ ipment that faci litates

Exhibit A, Page 5 177 transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not 178 limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power 179 supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, 180 but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless 181 services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.

182 AA. "Utility Pole" means a pole or tower owned by any utility company that is primarily used to 183 support wires or cables necessary to the provision of electrical or other utility services regulated by 184 the California Public Utilities Commission.

185 BB. "Wireless Services" means any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service 186 transmitted over frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.

187 CC. "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" means any facility constructed, installed, or 188 operated for wireless service. "Wireless telecommunications facility" includes, but is not limited to, 189 antennas or other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, 190 telecommunications towers or similar structures supporting such equipment, related accessory 191 equipment, equipment buildings, parking areas, and other accessory development. "Wireless 192 telecommunications facility" does not mean any of the following:

193 1. A facility that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, of 194 the Commission's Rules, or its successor regulation.

195 2. An antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 196 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or any successor regulation, including, but not limited to, direct-to- 197 home satellite dishes that are less than one meter in diameter, TV antennas used to 198 receive television broadcast signals and wireless cable antennas.

199 3. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other 200 portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency 201 services radio, and other similar portable devices as determined by the zoning 202 administrator.

203 4. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any government agency.

204 5. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any emergency medical care 205 provider.

206 6. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary 207 nature.

208 7. Any wireless telecommunications facilities exempted from the Mill Valley Municipal Code 209 by federal law or state law.

Exhibit A, Page 6 210 20.73.030 Applicability

211 A. This chapter applies to all wireless telecommunications facilities as follows:

212 1. All facilities for which applications were not approved prior to the effective date of this 213 chapter shall be subject to and comply with all provisions of this chapter;

214 2. All facilities, notwithstanding the date approved, shall be subject immediately to the 215 provisions of this chapter governing the operation and maintenance, cessation of use 216 and abandonment, removal and restoration of wireless telecommunications facilities and 217 wireless telecommunications collocation facilities and the prohibition of dangerous 218 conditions or obstructions by such facilities; provided, however, that in the event a 219 condition of approval conflicts with a provision of this chapter, the condition of approval 220 shall control unless and until the permit is amended or revoked.

221 B. Title 20, including but not limited to this chapter 20.73 shall not apply to a wireless 222 telecommunications facility on property owned by the City.

223 C. Notwithstanding any provision of the Mill Valley Municipal Code to the contrary, provisions 224 governing the installation of a public utility facility or accessory equipment shall not apply to 225 wireless telecommunications facilities. This chapter 20.73 shall govern all applications for wireless 226 telecommunications facilities.

227 20.73.040 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Required

228 A. Conditional Use Permit required. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located 229 or modified within the City on any property, including the public right-of-way, without the issuance 230 of a permit as required by this chapter as set forth in the table below. Such permit shall be in 231 addition to any other permit required pursuant to the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

232

Exhibit A, Page 7 Private Property Public Right-of way3 RS, RSP, DR, All Zoning Districts Description Wireless Facility MFR All Other Zoning Zoning Districts Districts Roof-mounted facility, building-mounted facility, or Conditional Use Permit/ Conditional Use Permit/ Not Permitted facility mounted on an Design Review Design Review existing pole Facility mounted on a Conditional Use Permit/ Conditional Use Permit/ replacement pole or new Not Permitted Design Review Design Review telecommunications tower New wireless Conditional Use Permit/ Conditional Use Permit/ telecommunications Not Permitted Design Review Design Review collocation facility Eligible facilities request 1 or application pursuant to Permitted Permitted Permitted California Government Code Section 65850.6 2 1 See requirements of section 20.73.140. 2 See requirements of section 20.73.150. 3 For any public right of way not within a zoning district, the location of a wireless telecommunication facility shall be determined based upon the closest district adjacent to the facility's location.

233

234 B. Non-exclusive grant. No approval granted under this chapter shall confer any exclusive 235 right, privilege, license, or franchise to occupy or use the public right-of-way of the City for delivery 236 of telecommunications services or any other purposes. Further, no approval shall be construed as 237 any warranty of title.

238 20.73.050 Application for Permit

239 A. Application content. All applications for a permit required by this chapter must be made in 240 writing on such form as the zoning administrator prescribes, which shall include the following 241 information, in addition to all other information determined necessary by the zoning administrator 242 as well as all other information required by the City as part of an application for a conditional use 243 permit:

244 1. Full name and contact information for the facility owner, facility operator, agent (if any), 245 and property owner, and related letter(s) of authorization.

Exhibit A, Page 8 246 2. The type of facility, including a full written description of the proposed facility, its 247 purpose and specifications.

248 3. A detailed site and engineering plan of the proposed facility containing the exact 249 proposed location of the facility, created by a qualified licensed engineer and in 250 accordance with requirements set by the zoning administrator.

251 4. Photographs of facility equipment and an accurate visual impact analysis with photo 252 simulations.

253 5. Completion of an RF exposure guidelines checklist, and proof of all applicable licenses or 254 other approvals required by the FCC.

255 6. If the application is for a facility that will be located within the public right-of-way, the 256 applicant shall certify that it is a telephone corporation or state the basis for its claimed 257 right to enter the right-of-way, and provide a copy of its certificate of public convenience 258 and necessity (CPCN), if a CPCN has been issued by the California Public Utilities 259 Commission.

260 7. A written description identifying the geographic service area for the subject installation, 261 accompanied by a plan and maps showing anticipated future installations and 262 modifications for the following two years.

263 8. A written report that analyzes acoustic levels for the proposed wireless 264 telecommunications facility and all associated equipment including without limitation all 265 environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators, and 266 permanent backup power generators in order to demonstrate compliance with chapter 267 7.16 (Noise Control). The acoustic analysis must be prepared and certified by an engineer 268 and include an analysis of the manufacturers' specifications for all noise-emitting 269 equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property 270 lines. In lieu of a written report, the applicant may submit evidence from the equipment 271 manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted from all the proposed equipment will not, 272 both individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits.

273 9. If the applicant claims it requires an exception to the requirements of this chapter, all 274 information and studies necessary for the City to evaluate that claim.

275 10. An application and processing fee and a deposit for a consultant review as set forth in 276 paragraph (B) of this section.

277 11. Any other studies or information determined necessary by the zoning administrator may 278 be required.

279

Exhibit A, Page 9 280 B. Independent expert.

281 1. The zoning administrator is authorized to retain on behalf of the City an independent, 282 qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a wireless 283 telecommunications facility to review the technical aspects of the application, including 284 but not limited to the following matters:

285 (a) The accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions,

286 (b) Compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards,

287 (c) Whether any requested exception is necessary to close a significant gap in 288 coverage and is the least intrusive means of doing so,

289 (d) Technical demonstration of the unavailability of alternative sites, facility 290 designs or configurations, and coverage analysis, and

291 (e) The validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant.

292 2. The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit pursuant to an 293 adopted fee schedule resolution.

294 20. 73.060 Location and Configuration Preferences

295 A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines to applicants and the reviewing 296 authority regarding the preferred locations and configurations for wireless telecommunication 297 facilities in the City, provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a wireless 298 telecommunication facility in any location or configuration that it is otherwise prohibited by this 299 chapter.

300 B. Review of Location and Configuration. The reviewing authority shall consider the extent to 301 which a proposed wireless telecommunication facility complies with these preferences and whether 302 there are feasible alternative locations or configurations to the proposed facility that are more 303 preferred under this section. If the location or configuration of a proposed facility qualifies for two 304 or more categories of preferred locations or configurations, it shall be deemed to belong to the least 305 preferred category.

306 C. Order of Preference - Configurations. The order of preference for the configuration for 307 wireless telecommunication facilities from most preferred to least preferred is:

308 1. Collocation with existing facilities,

309 2. Roof-mounted,

310 3. Building-mounted,

Exhibit A, Page 10 311 4. Mounted on an existing pole or utility pole

312 5. Mounted on a new pole or utility pole that will replace an existing pole or utility pole,

313 6. Mounted on a new telecommunication tower.

314 D. Order of Preference - Location. The order of preference for the location of wireless 315 telecommunications facilities from most preferred to least preferred is:

316 1. In the C-G zoning district,

317 2. In the C-N zoning district,

318 3. In the C-L zoning district,

319 4. In the C-D zoning district,

320 5. In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being the C-G district,

321 6. In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being the C-N district,

322 7. In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being the C-L district,

323 8. In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being the C-D district,

324 9. In the public right-of-way with the closest adjacent district being the RM district,

325 10. Any public right-of-way location that abuts the property line of a structure recognized as 326 a local, state or national historic landmark, historic district or on the register of historic 327 places,

328 E. Accessory equipment. In order of preference from most preferred to least preferred, 329 accessory equipment for wireless telecommunication facilities and wireless telecommunications 330 collocation facilities shall be located underground, within a building or structure, on a screened roof 331 top area or structure, or in a rear yard if not readily visible from surrounding properties and the 332 roadway, unless the reviewing authority finds that another location is preferable under the 333 circumstances of the application.

334 20. 73.070 Design and Development Standards for All Facilities

335 A. Basic requirements. The design and development standards set forth in this section apply to 336 all wireless telecommunications facilities no matter where they are located. Wireless 337 telecommunications facilities shall be designed and maintained so as to minimize visual, noise, and 338 other impacts on the surrounding community and shall be planned, designed, located, and erected 339 in accordance with the design and development standards in this section.

340 B. No speculative facilities. A wireless telecommunications facility, wireless

Exhibit A, Page 11 341 telecommunications collocation facility, or a telecommunications tower, which is built on 342 speculation and for which there is no wireless tenant is prohibited within the City.

343 C. General guidelines. The applicant shall employ screening and camouflage design techniques 344 in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the 345 facility is as visually inconspicuous as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the 346 surrounding area and to hide the facility from predominant views from surrounding properties, all in 347 a manner that achieves compatibility with the community.

348 D. Traffic safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid 349 adverse impacts on traffic safety.

350 E. Antennas. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas possible to accomplish the 351 coverage objectives. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent reasonably 352 feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by 353 the same or other operators or carriers. Antennas shall be situated as to reduce visual impact 354 without compromising their function. Whip antennas need not be screened.

355 F. Landscaping. Where appropriate, facilities shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance 356 existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for 357 screening. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained where such vegetation 358 is deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to block the line of sight between facilities 359 and adjacent uses.

360 G. Signage. Wireless telecommunications facilities and wireless telecommunications 361 collocation facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning 362 or other sign age required by law or permitted by the City.

363 H. Lighting. No wireless telecommunications facility may be illuminated unless either 364 specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency or in 365 association with the illumination of an athletic field on City or school property. Lightning arresters 366 and beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other 367 government agency. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when 368 calculating the height of facilities such as telecommunications towers, lattice towers, and 369 monopoles.

370 I. Noise.

371 1. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation 372 , facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption 373 caused by noise.

374 2. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not 375 be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Exhibit A, Page 12 376 3. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 50 377 dBA at the facility's property line if the facility is located in a business or commercial zone 378 that permits those uses, provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 379 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such 380 equipment noise shall at no time be audible at the property line of any such residential 381 property. For any facility located within a residential zone, such equipment noise shall at 382 no time be audible at the property line of any residentially improved or residential zoned 383 property.

384 4. Any equipment, including but not limited to air conditioning units, that may emit noise 385 that would be audible from beyond three feet from the facility in the case of a facility 386 located in the right-of-way, or in the case of other facilities the facility's property line, 387 shall be enclosed or equipped with noise attenuation devices to the extent necessary to 388 ensure compliance with applicable noise limitations under the Mill Valley Municipal 389 Code.

390 J. Security. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications 391 collocation facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized 392 access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, 393 visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The reviewing authority may require the provision of warning 394 signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and 395 vandalism when, because of their location or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an 396 attractive nuisance.

397 K. Modification. At the time of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing 398 equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise, and 399 other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, 400 more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.

401 20. 73.080 Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities Outside the Public Right- 402 of-Way

403 A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located outside the public right-of-way are subject to the 404 design and development standards set forth in this section in addition to all design and 405 development standards that apply to all facilities.

406 B. No parking interference. In no event shall the installation of facilities replace or interfere 407 with parking spaces in such a way as to reduce the total number of parking spaces below the 408 number that is required.

409 C. Roof-mounted facilities. Roof-mounted facilities shall be designed and constructed to be 410 fully concealed or screened in a manner compatible with the existing architecture of the building the 411 facility is mounted to in color, texture, and type of material. Screening shall not increase the bulk of 412 the structure nor alter the character of the structure.

Exhibit A, Page 13 413 D. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower. Facilities mounted to a 414 telecommunications tower shall be located in close proximity to existing above-ground utilities, such 415 as electrical towers or utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or under grounding for at 416 least 18 months after the date of application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas 417 where they will not detract from the appearance of the City.

418 1. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, including, but not limited to, the 419 attached antennas, shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width 420 required to adequately support the proposed facility and meet FCC requirements. The 421 applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the zoning administrator 422 establishing compliance with this paragraph. In any event, facilities mounted to a 423 telecommunications tower shall not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in 424 the applicable zoning district.

425 2. Aside from the antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible. All cables, 426 including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior 427 of the telecommunications tower and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest 428 extent feasible without jeopardizing the physical integrity of the tower.

429 3. Monopole installations shall be situated so as to utilize existing natural or man-made 430 features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the 431 greatest amount of visual screening.

432 4. All antenna components and accessory wireless equipment shall be treated with exterior 433 coatings of a color and texture to match the predominant visual background or existing 434 architectural elements so as to visually blend in with the surrounding development. 435 Subdued colors and non-reflective materials that blend with surrounding materials and 436 colors shall be used.

437 5. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is 438 necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.

439 6. If a faux tree is proposed for the monopole installation, it shall be of a type of tree 440 compatible with those existing in the immediate areas of the installation. If no trees 441 exist within the immediate areas, the applicant shall create a landscape setting that 442 integrates the faux tree with added species of a similar height and type. Additional 443 camouflage of the faux tree may be required depending on the type and design of faux 444 tree proposed.

445 E. Accessory equipment. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of any 446 wireless telecommunications facility shall be fully screened or camouflaged, and located in a 447 manner to minimize their visibility to the greatest extent possible utilizing the following methods for 448 the type of installation:

Exhibit A, Page 14 449 1. Accessory equipment for roof-mounted facilities shall be installed inside the building to 450 which it is mounted or underground, if feasible. If not feasible, such accessory 451 equipment may be located on the roof of the building that the facility is mounted on, 452 provided that both the equipment and screening materials are painted the color of the 453 building, roof, or surroundings. All screening materials for roof-mounted facilities shall be 454 of a quality and design that is architecturally integrated with the design of the building or 455 structure.

456 2. Accessory equipment for facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall be 457 visually screened by locating the equipment either within a nearby building, in an 458 underground vault (with the exception of required electrical panels) or in another type of 459 enclosed structure, which shall comply with the development and design standards of 460 the zoning district in which the accessory equipment is located. Such enclosed structure 461 shall be architecturally treated and adequately screened from view by landscape 462 plantings, decorative walls, fencing or other appropriate means, selected so that the 463 resulting screening will be visually integrated with the architecture and landscaping of 464 the surroundings.

465 20.73.090 Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities in the Public Right-of- 466 Way

467 A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located in the public right-of-way are subject to the design 468 and development standards set forth in this section in addition to all design and development 469 standards that apply to all facilities.

470 B. Right-of-way authority. An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the 471 public righr of way. Only applicants authorized to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or 472 federal law or a franchise or other agreement with the City shall be eligible for a permit to install or 473 modify a wireless telecommunications facility in the public right-of-way.

474 C. Antennas.

475 1. Utility poles. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to an existing utility pole 476 shall not exceed 24 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any 477 portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 18 feet above any 478 drivable road surface. All installations on utility poles shall fully comply with the 479 California Public Utilities Commission general orders, including, but not limited to, 480 General Ord er 95, as revised.

481 2. Street light poles. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole 482 shall not exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location 483 with its closest adjacent district being a commercial zoning district and shall not exceed 484 three feet above the existing height of a street light pole in any other zoning district. Any 485 portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole shall be no less than 18 486 fpet above any drivable road surface.

Exhibit A, Page 15 487 D. Poles.

488 1. Only pole-mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other 489 telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not 490 replacing an existing pole.

491 2. Pole height and width limitations:

492 (a) All poles shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width 493 required to support the proposed antenna installation and meet FCC 494 requirements. Poles and antennas and similar structures shall be no greater in 495 diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper 496 functioning of the facility.

497 (b) Notwithstanding the above, no facility shall be located on a pole that is less 498 than 26 feet in height and no facility shall exceed 35 feet in height, including, 499 but not limited to the pole and any antenna that protrudes above the pole.

500 (c) Pole mounted equipment shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension.

501 3. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate the facility, the pole 502 shall match the appearance of the original pole to the extent feasible, unless another 503 design better accomplishes the objectives of this section. Such replacement pole shall 504 not exceed the height of the pole it is replacing by more than seven feet.

505 4. If an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the right-of-way, new poles shall 506 be designed to resemble existing poles in the right-of-way, including size, height, color, 507 materials and style, with the exception of any existing pole designs that are scheduled to 508 be removed and not replaced, unless another design better accomplishes the objectives 509 of this section. Such new poles that are not replacement poles shall be located no closer 510 than 90 feet to an existing pole.

511 E. Space occupied. Facilities shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right- 512 of-way that is technically feasible.

513 F. Location.

514 1. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual 515 obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the public's use of the 516 right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists.

517 2. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering 518 with access to fire hydrants, fire stations, fire escapes, water valves, underground vaults, 519 valve housing structures, or any other vital public health and safety facility.

Exhibit A, Page 16 520 3. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, above-ground accessory equipment, 521 or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be setback a minimum of 522 18 inches from the front of a curb.

523 4. Each pole mounted wireless telecommunications facility must be separated by at least 524 1,500 feet.

525 5. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, between the pole and 526 any accessory equipment shall be placed underground, if feasible.

527 6. All new wires needed to service the wireless telecommunications facility must be 528 installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and 529 height of the existing utility pole.

530 G. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. All facilities shall be built in compliance with 531 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

532 H. Accessory equipment. With the exception of the electric meter, which shall be pole- 533 mounted to the extent feasible, all accessory equipment shall be located underground to the extent 534 feasible. When above-ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory 535 equipment and when such accessory equipment cannot be pole-mounted, such accessory 536 equipment shall be enclosed within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total 537 footprint of 15 square feet, and shall be screened and camouflaged to the fullest extent possible, 538 including the use of landscaping or alternate screening. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be 539 adequately screened and camouflaged.

540 I. Documentation. The· applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the zoning 541 administrator establishing compliance with this section 20.73.090.

542 20.73.100 Conditions of Approval for All Facilities

543 A. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this chapter, upon approval all facilities 544 shall be subject to each of the following conditions of approval, as well as any modification of these 545 conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the reviewing authority:

546 1. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or other permits 547 required by the Mill Valley Municipal Code, the permittee must incorporate the wireless 548 telecommunication facility permit granted under this chapter, all conditions associated 549 with the wireless telecommunications facility permit and the approved plans and any 550 photo simulations (the "Approved Plans") into the project plans. The permittee must 551 construct, install and operate the wireless telecommunications facility in strict 552 compliance with the Approved Plans. The permittee shall submit an as built drawing 553 within 90 days after instaHation of the facility.

554 2. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the permittee shall:

Exhibit A, Page 17 555 (a) place above-ground wireless telecommunications facilities below ground, 556 including, but not limited to, accessory equipment that has been mounted to 557 a telecommunications tower or mounted on the ground; and

558 (b) replace larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually 559 intrusive facilities, after receiving all necessary permits and approvals required 560 pursuant to the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

561 3. The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site 562 information on a form to be supplied by the City. The permittee shall notify the City of 563 any changes to the information submitted within seven days of any change, including 564 change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall 565 include, but is not limited to, the following:

566 (a) Identity, including the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact 567 phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the agent or 568 person responsible for the maintenance of the facility.

569 (b) The legal status of the owner of the wireless telecommunications facility, 570 including official identification numbers and FCC certification.

571 (c) Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if different than 572 the permittee.

573 4. The permittee shall not place any facilities that will deny access to, or otherwise interfere 574 with, any public utility, easement, or right-of-way located on the site. The permittee 575 shall allow the City reasonable access to, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing 576 public improvements within or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to, 577 pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting and public signage.

578 5. At all times, all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as required by the 579 FCC and California Public Utilities Commission, and as approved by the City. The location 580 and dimensions of a sign bearing the emergency contact name and telephone number 581 shall be posted pursuant to the approved plans.

582 6. At all times, the permittee shall ensure that the facility complies with the most current 583 regulatory and operational standards including, but not limited to, radio frequency 584 emissions standards adopted by the FCC and antenna height standards adopted by the 585 Federal Aviation Administration.

586 7. If the zoning administrator determines there is good cause to believe that the facility 587 may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed FCC standards, the zoning 588 administrator may require the permittee to submit a technically sufficient written report 589 certified by a qualified radio frequency emissions engineer, certifying that the facility is in 590 compliance with such FCC standards.

Exhibit A, Page 18 591 8. Permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond, which shall be in effect until the 592 facilities are fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original 593 condition, to cover permittee's obligations under these conditions of approval and the 594 Mill Valley Municipal Code. The bond coverage shall include, but not be limited to, 595 removal of the facility, maintenance obligations and landscaping obligations. The 596 amount of the performance bond shall be set by the zoning administrator in an amount 597 rationally related to the obligations covered by the bond and shall be specified in the 598 conditions of approval.

599 9. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and 600 appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, 601 employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding 602 against the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, 603 officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers to attack, set aside, void 604 or annul, an approval of the City, Planning Commission or City council concerning this 605 permit and the project. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, 606 settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, 607 interest, attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or 608 arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the 609 permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit 610 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have 611 the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel 612 for the defense at permittee's expense.

613 10. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in 614 interest to permittee.

615 11. A condition setting forth the permit expiration date in accordance with section 20.73.200 616 shall be included in the conditions of approval.

617 20.73.110 Additional Conditions of Approval for Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way

618 A. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this chapter, upon approval all facilities 619 in the public right-of-way shall be subject to each of the conditions of approval set forth in section 620 20. 73.100, each of the following conditions of approval, and any modification of these conditions or 621 additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the reviewing authority:

622 1. The wi re less telecommunications facility shall be subject to such conditions, changes or 623 limitations as are from time to time deemed necessary by the City engineer for the 624 purpose of: (a) protecting the public health, safety, and welfare, (b) preventing 625 interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and (c) preventing damage to the 626 public right-of-way or any property adjacent to it. The City may modify the permit to 627 reflect such conditions, changes or limitations by following the same notice and public 628 hearing procedures as are applicable to the grant of a wireless telecommunications 629 facility perm it for similarly located fa cilities, except the permittee shall be given notice by

Exhibit A, Page 19 630 personal service or by registered or certified mail at the last address provided to the City 631 by the permittee.

632 2. The permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any 633 existing structure, improvement or property without the prior consent of the owner of 634 that structure, improvement or property. No structure, improvement or property owned 635 by the City shall be moved to accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility unless 636 the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any 637 surrounding businesses or residents, and the permittee pays all costs and expenses 638 related to the relocation of the City's structure, improvement or property. Prior to 639 commencement of any work pursuant to an encroachment permit issued for any facility 640 within the public right-of-way, the permittee shall provide the City with documentation 641 establishing to the City's satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or 642 interfere with any other structure, improvement or property within the public right-of­ 643 way to be affected by applicant's facilities.

644 3. The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any property or 645 person by the facility.

646 4. The permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including, but not 647 limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support to 648 City streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, street lights, traffic signals, 649 improvements of any kind or nature, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line 650 and systems, or sewer systems and sewer lines that result from any activities performed 651 in connection with the installation or maintenance of a wireless telecommunications 652 facility in the public right-of-way. The permittee shall restore such areas, structures and 653 systems to the condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance 654 that necessitated the repairs. In the event the permittee fails to complete such repair 655 within the number of days stated on a written notice by the zoning administrator, the 656 zoning administrator shall cause such repair to be completed at permittee's sole cost and 657 expense.

658 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain the zoning 659 administrator's approval of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist if the 660 installation of the wireless telecommunication facility will be located within the canopy 661 of a street tree, or a protected tree on private property, or within a ten-foot radius of the 662 base of such a tree. Depending on site specific criteria (e.g., location of tree, size, and 663 type of tree, etc.), a radius greater than ten feet may be required by the zoning 664 administrator.

665 6. Should any utility company offer electrical service that does not require the use of a 666 meter cabinet, the permittee shall at its sole cost and expense remove the meter cabinet 667 and any related foundation within 30 days of such service being offered and reasonably 668 restore the area to its prior condition.

Exhibit A, Page 20 669 7. The permittee shall modify, remove, or relocate its facility, or portion thereof, without 670 cost or expense to City, if and when made necessary by:

671 a) Any public improvement project, including, but not limited to, the construction, 672 maintenance, or operation of any underground or aboveground facilities including 673 but not limited to sewers, storm drains, conduits, gas, water, electric or other utility 674 systems, or pipes owned by City or any other public agency;

675 b) Any abandonment of any street, sidewalk, or other public facility;

676 c) Any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public 677 facility; or

678 d) A determination by the zoning administrator that the wireless telecommunications 679 facility has become incompatible with public health, safety or welfare or the public's 680 use of the public right-of-way.

681 8. Any modification, removal, or relocation of the facility shall be completed within 90 days 682 of written notification by City unless exigencies dictate a shorter period for removal or 683 relocation. Modification or relocation of the facility shall require submittal, review and 684 approval of a permit amendment pursuant to the Mill Valley Municipal Code. The 685 permittee shall be entitled, on permittee's election, to either a pro-rata refund of fees 686 paid for the original permit or to a new permit, without additional fee, at a location as 687 close to the original location as the standards set forth in the Mill Valley Municipal Code 688 allow. In the event the facility is not modified, removed, or relo~ated within said period 689 of time, the City may cause the same to be done at the sole cost and expense of 690 permittee. Further, due to exigent circumstances as provided in the Mill Valley Municipal 691 Code, the City may modify, remove, or relocate wireless telecommunications facilities 692 without prior notice to permittee provided permittee is notified within a reasonable 693 period thereafter.

694 20.73.120 Findings

695 A. Where a wireless telecommunication facility requires a conditional use permit under this 696 chapter, the reviewing authority shall not approve any application unless, in addition to the findings 697 generally applicable to all conditional use permits, all of the following additional findings are made:

698 1. The proposed facility complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter.

699 2. The proposed facility has been designed and located to achieve compatibility with the 700 community to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.

701 3. The applicant has submitted a statement of its willingness to allow other carriers to 702 collocate on the proposed wireless telecommunications facility wherever technically and 703 economically feasible and where collocation would not harm community compatibility.

Exhibit A, Page 21 704 4. Noise generated by equipment will not be excessive, annoying nor be detrimental to the 705 public health, safety, and welfare and will not exceed the standards set forth in this 706 chapter.

707 B. In addition to the findings in paragraph (A) above, approval of a wireless telecommunications 708 facility permit for a facility that will be located in the public right-of-way may be granted only if the 709 following findings are made by the reviewing authority:

710 1. The applicant has provided substantial written evidence supporting the applicant's claim 711 that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or 712 the applicant has entered into a franchise or other agreement with the City permitting 713 them to use the public right-of-way.

714 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the facility will not interfere with the use of the 715 public right-of-way, existing subterranean infrastructure, or the City's plans for 716 modification or use of such location and infrastructure.

717 20.73.130 Exceptions

718 A. Exceptions pertaining to any prov1s1on of this chapter, including, but not limited to, 719 exceptions from findings that would otherwise justify denial, may be granted by the reviewing 720 authority if the reviewing authority makes the finding that:

721 1. Denial of the facility as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both; or

722 2. A provision of this chapter, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights 723 under federal law, state law, or both.

724 B. An applicant may only request an exception at the time of applying for a wireless 725 telecommunications facility permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) of this 726 chapter from which the exception is sought and the basis of the request. Any request for an 727 exception after the City has deemed an application complete shall be treated as a new application.

728 C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a conditional use permit shall be 729 required for a facility when an exception is requested.

730 D. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that denial of the facility as proposed would 731 violate federal law, state law, or both, or that the provisions of this chapter, as applied to applicant, 732 would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both, using the evidentiary 733 standards required by that law at issue. The City shall have the right to hire an independent 734 consultant, at the applicant's expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and 735 shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence to refute the applicant's claim.

Exhibit A, Page 22 736 20.73.140 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Covered under Section 6409(a) of the Middle 737 Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012

738 A. Purpose. Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 739 112-96, codified in 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), generally requires that State and local governments "may 740 not deny, and shall approve" requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an 741 existing tower or base station. Federal Communication Commission regulations interpret this 742 statute and create procedural rules for local review, which generally preempt certain subjective 743 land-use regulations, limit permit application content requirements and provide the applicant with a 744 potential "deemed granted" remedy when the State or local government fails to approve or deny 745 the request within sixty (60) days after submittal (accounting for any tolling periods). Moreover, 746 whereas Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, codified in 47 U.S.C. § 747 332, applies to only "personal wireless service facilities" (e.g., cellular telephone towers and 748 equipment), Section 6409(a) applies to all "wireless" facilities licensed or authorized by the FCC 749 (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite, microwave backhaul, etc.).

750 The overlap between wireless deployments covered under Section 6409(a) and other wireless 751 deployments, combined with the different substantive and procedural rules applicable to such 752 deployments, creates a potential for confusion that harms the' public interest in both efficient 753 wireless facilities deployment and carefully planned community development in accordance with 754 local values. A separate permit application and review process specifically designed for compliance 755 with Section 6409(a) contained in a section devoted to Section 6409(a) will mitigate such potential 756 confusion, streamline local review and preserve the City's land-use authority to maximum extent 757 possible.

758 B. Applicability. This Section applies to all collocations or modifications to an existing wireless 759 tower or base station submitted with a written request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a).

760 C. Approval Required. Any request to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at 761 an existing wireless tower or base station submitted with a written request for a 6409(a) approval 762 shall be subject to the zoning administrator's approval, conditional approval or denial without 763 prejudice pursuant to the standards and procedures contained in this chapter.

764 D. Other Regulatory Approvals. No collocation or modification approved under any section 765 6409(a) approval may occur unless the applicant also obtains all other applicable permits or 766 regulatory approvals from the City and state or federal agencies. Furthermore, any section 6409(a) 767 approval granted under this chapter shall remain subject to any and all lawful conditions or 768 requirements associated with such other permits or regulatory approvals from the City and state or 769 federal agencies.

770 E. Application Requirement. The City shall not approve any wireless facility subject to this 771 chapter except upon a duly filed application consistent with this Section and any other written rules 772 the City or the zoning administrator may establish from time to time. An application must include 773 the information required by Section 20.73.050 and the following additional information:

Exhibit A, Page 23 774 1. A title report prepared within the six months prior to the application filing date in order 775 for the City verify the property owner's identity. If the applicant does not own the subject 776 property, the application must include a written authorization signed by the property 777 owner that empowers the applicant to file the application and perform all wireless 778 facility construction, installation, operation and maintenance to the extent described in 779 the application.

780 2. A written statement that explains in plain factual detail whether and why Section 6409(a) 781 and the related FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001 et seq. require approval for the 782 specific project. A complete written narrative analysis will state the applicable standard 783 and all the facts that allow the City to conclude the standard has been met. Bare 784 conclusions not factually supported do not constitute a complete written analysis. As 785 part of this written statement the applicant must also include (i) whether and why the 786 support structure qualifies as an existing tower or existing base station; and (ii) whether 787 and why the proposed collocation or modification does not cause a substantial change in 788 height, width, excavation, equipment cabinets, concealment or permit compliance.

789 F. Procedures for a Duly Filed Application. The City shall not review any application unless 790 duly filed in accordance with this Section, as follows:

791 1. Pre-Submittal Conference. Before application submittal, applicants must schedule and 792 attend a pre-application meeting with the zoning administrator for all proposed 793 modifications submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). The pre-submittal 794 conference is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion that 795 includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification, including whether the 796 project qualifies for Section 6409(a); any latent issues in connection with the existing 797 tower or base station; potential concealment issues (if applicable); coordination with 798 other City departments responsible for application review; and application completeness 799 issues. To mitigate unnecessary delays due to application incompleteness, applicants are 800 encouraged (but not required) to bring any draft applications or other materials so that 801 City staff may provide informal feedback about whether such applications or other 802 materials may be incomplete or unacceptable. The zoning administrator may, in the 803 zoning administrator's discretion, grant a written exemption to the submittal 804 appointment under Section 20.73.140(F)(2) or for a specific requirement for a complete 805 application to any applicant who (i) schedules, attends and fully participates in any pre- 806 submittal conference and (ii) shows to the zoning administrator's satisfaction that such 807 specific requirement duplicates information already provided in other materials to be 808 submitted or is otherwise unnecessary to the City's review under facts and circumstances 809 in that particular case. Any written exemption will be limited to the project discussed at 810 the pre-submittal conference and will not be extended to any other project.

811 2. Submittal Appointment. AI_I applications must be filed with the City at a pre-scheduled 812 appointment. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment, but 813 may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and

Exhibit A, Page 24 814 not prejudicial to other applicants. Any application received without an appointment, 815 whether delivered in-person or through any other means, will not be considered duly 816 filed unless the applicant received a written exemption from the zoning administrator at 817 a pre-submittal conference.

818 3. Appointment Scheduling Procedures. For any event in the submittal process that requires 819 an appointment, applicants must submit a written request to the zoning administrator. 820 The zoning administrator shall endeavor to provide applicants with an appointment as 821 soon as reasonably feasible and within five business days after a written request is 822 received.

823 4. Applications Deemed Withdrawn. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, an 824 application will be automatically deemed withdrawn by the applicant when the applicant 825 fails to tender a substantive response to the City within 90 calendar days after the City 826 deems the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant. The zoning 827 administrator may, in the zoning administrator's discretion, grant a written extension for 828 up to an additional 30 calendar days when the applicant submits a written request prior 829 to the 90th day that shows good cause to grant the extension. Delays due to 830 circumstances outside the applicant's reasonable control will be considered good cause 831 to grant the extension.

832 5. Departmental Forms, Rules and Other Regulations. The City council authorizes the zoning 833 administrator to develop and publish permit application forms, checklists, informational 834 handouts and other related materials that the zoning administrator finds necessary, 835 appropriate or useful for processing requests for section 6409(a) approvals. Without 836 further authorization from the City council, the zoning administrator may from time-to­ 837 time update and alter any such permit application forms, checklists, informational 838 handouts and other related materials as the zoning administrator deems necessary, 839 appropriate or useful to respond to regulatory, technological or other changes related to 840 this chapter. The City council authorizes the zoning administrator to establish other 841 reasonable rules and regulations, which may include without limitation regular hours for 842 appointments with applicants, as the zoning administrator deems necessary or 843 appropriate to organize, document and manage the application intake process.

844

Exhibit A, Page 25 845 G. Administrative Review; Decision Notices. The zoning administrator shall administratively 846 review an application for a section 6409(a) approval and act on such an application without prior 847 notice or a public hearing. Within five working days after the zoning administrator conditionally 848 approves or denies an application submitted for Section 6409(a) approval or before the FCC 849 timeframe for review expires (whichever occurs first), the zoning administrator shall send a written 850 notice to the applicant. In the event that the zoning administrator determines that an application 851 submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) does not qualify for approval, the zoning 852 administrator will send written notice to the applicant that includes the reasons to support the 853 review authority's decision and states that the application will be automatically denied without 854 prejudice on the 60th day after the date the application was filed unless the applicant withdraws the 855 application.

856 H. Required Findings for 6409(a) Approval. The zoning administrator may approve or 857 conditionally approve an application submitted for Section 6409(a) approval when the zoning 858 administrator finds that the proposed project:

859 1. Involves collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing 860 wireless tower or base station; and

861 2. Does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or 862 base station.

863 I. Criteria for Denial Without Prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, 864 and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the zoning administrator may deny 865 without prejudice an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) when it finds 866 that the proposed project:

867 1. Does not satisfy the criteria for approval;

868 2. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition reasonably related to 869 public health and safety then in effect; or

870 3. Involves the replacement of the entire support structure.

871 J. Conditional 6409(a) Approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, 872 nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the City's authority to conditionally approve an 873 application for a section 6409(a) approval to protect and promote the public health, safety and 874 welfare.

875 K. Appeals. Notwithstanding any provision of the Mill Valley Municipal Code to the contrary, 876 including but not limited to section , an applicant may appeal a decision by the zoning administrator 877 to deny without prejudice a Section 6409(a) application. The appeal must be filed within 10 days 878 from the zoning administrator's decision. The appeal must state in plain terms the grounds for 879 reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The City manager shall serve as the appellate 880 authority for all appeals of all actions of the zoning administrator taken pursuant to this section. The

Exhibit A, Page 26 881 City shall provide notice for an administrative hearing by the City manager. The City manager shall 882 limit its review to whether the project should be approved or denied in accordance with the 883 provisions in paragraphs (H) and {I) of this section. The decision of the City manager shall be final 884 and not subject to any further administrative appeals.

885 L. Standard Conditions of Approval. In addition to all other conditions adopted by the zoning 886 administrator, all Section 6409(a) approvals, whether approved by the zoning administrator or 887 deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the following conditions 888 in this Section; provided, however, that the zoning administrator shall have discretion to modify or 889 amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the 890 circumstances:

891 1. Approved Plans. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or 892 other permits required by the Mill Valley Municipal Code, the permittee must 893 incorporate the wireless telecommunications facility permit granted under this section, 894 all conditions associated with the wireless telecommunications facility permit and the 895 approved plans and any photo simulations (the "Approved Plans") into the project plans. 896 The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless telecommunications 897 facility in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. The permittee shall submit an as 898 built drawing within 90 days after installation of the facility.

899 2. Permit Term. The City's grant or grant by operation of law of a Section 6409(a) approval 900 constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or other prior 901 regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station. The City's grant or grant 902 by operation of law of a section 6409(a) approval will not extend the permit term, if any, 903 for any conditional use permit, or other underlying prior regulatory authorization. 904 Accordingly, the term for a section 6409(a) approval shall be coterminous with the 905 underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base 906 station.

907 3. Accelerated Permit Terms Due to Invalidation. In the event that any court of competent 908 jurisdiction invalidates any portion of Section 6409(a) or any FCC rule that interprets 909 Section 6409(a) such that federal law would not mandate approval for any Section 910 6409(a) approval, such 6409(a) approvals shall automatically expire one year from the 911 effective date of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated 912 termination of previously approved section 6409(a) approvals or the zoning 913 administrator grants an extension upon written request from the permittee that shows 914 good cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial 915 hardship. Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the zoning 916 administrator may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee 917 shall not be required to remove its improvements approved under the invalidated 918 section 6409(a) approval when it has submitted an application for a conditional use 919 permit for those improvements before the one-year period ends.

Exhibit A, Page 27 920 4. No Waiver of Standing. The City's grant or grant by operation of law of a Section 6409(a) 921 approval does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to 922 challenge Section 6409(a), any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) or any section 923 6409(a) approval.

924 5. Build-out Period. The section 6409(a) approval will automatically expire one year from 925 the issuance date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required 926 to install, construct and operate the approved wireless facility, which includes without 927 limitation any permits or approvals required by the any federal, state or local public 928 agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the wireless facility or its use. The 929 zoning administrator may grant one written extension to a date certain when the 930 permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an 931 extension submitted at least 30 days prior to the automatic expiration date in this 932 condition. Any further extensions may be granted by the planning commission.

933 6. Maintenance Obligations; Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes 934 without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, 935 fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the 936 Approved Plans and all conditions in this section 6409(a) approval. The permittee shall 937 keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to 938 the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 939 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti 940 or other vandalism occurred.

941 7. Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all 942 federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of 943 law ("Laws") applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the wireless facility or any 944 use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this section 6409(a) approval. 945 The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be 946 broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are 947 intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee's obligations to maintain 948 compliance with all Laws.

949 8. Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to 950 avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may 951 arise from the permittee's construction, installation, operation, modification, 952 maintenance, repair, removal or other activities at the site. The permittee shall not 953 perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, 954 modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment 955 or machines on any day and at any time prohibited under the Mill Valley Municipal Code. 956 The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent 957 an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency 958 declared by the City. The zoning administrator may issue a stop work order for any work 959 that violates this condition.

Exhibit A, Page 28 960 9. Noise Complaints. The permittee shall conduct all activities on the site in compliance with 961 the noise standards in the Mill Valley Municipal Code. In the event that any person files a 962 noise complaint and the City verifies that such complaint is valid, the permittee must 963 remedy the violation within 10 days after notice from the City, which may include a 964 demonstration that the permittee has amended its operational guidelines in situations 965 where the violation arises from the permittee's personnel rather than the permittee's 966 equipment.

967 10. Inspections; Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City 968 or its designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment 969 upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City or its 970 designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice 971 to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or 972 when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or 973 persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City or its designee while such 974 inspection or emergency access occurs.

975 11. Contact Information. The permittee shall furnish the City with accurate and up-to-date 976 contact information for a person responsible for the wireless facility, which includes 977 without limitation such person's full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile 978 number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact 979 information up-to-date at all times.

980 12. Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the property owner upon which the 981 wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, 982 officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all (1) damages, liabilities, 983 injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs 984 and other actions or proceedings ("Claims") brought against the City or its agents, 985 officers, officials, employees or volunteers to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, 986 void or annul the City's approval of this section 6409(a) approval, and (2) other Claims 987 any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, that arise from 988 or in connection with the permittee's or its agents', directors', officers', employees', 989 contractors', subcontractors', licensees', or customers' acts or omissions in connection 990 with this section 6409{a) approval or the wireless facility. In the event the City becomes 991 aware any Claims, the City will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the 992 private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee 993 expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have the right to approve, which 994 approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's 995 defense, and the property owner or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse 996 City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course 997 of the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee's 998 indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that 999 motivates the City to approve this section 6409(a) approval, and that such

Exhibit A, Page 29 1000 indemnification obligations will survive the expiration or revocation of this section 1001 6409{a) approval.

1002 13. Performance Bond. Before the City issues any construction permit in connection with the 1003 wireless facility, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form 1004 acceptable to the City manager in an amount equal to or greater than a written estimate 1005 from a qualified contractor with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written 1006 estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, which 1007 includes without limitation all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, 1008 mounts, brackets, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, 1009 footings and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or 1010 installed in connection with the wireless facility. In establishing or adjusting the bond 1011 amount required under this condition, and in accordance with California Government 1012 Code § 65964(a), the City manager shall take into consideration information provided by 1013 the permittee regarding the cost to remove the wireless facility.

1014 14. Record Retention. The permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all 1015 permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the wireless facility, 1016 which includes without limitation this approval, the approved plans and photo 1017 simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval 1018 and any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the 1019 event that the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, 1020 any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an inspection of the 1021 missing records will be construed against the permittee.

1022 15. Compliance Obligations. An applicant or permittee will not be relieved of its obligation 1023 to comply with every applicable provision in the Mill Valley Municipal Code, any permit, 1024 any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation by reason of any failure by the 1025 City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance by the applicant or permittee.

1026 20.73.150 Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facilities Covered under California 1027 Government Code Section 65850.6

1028 A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to comply with an application for a Wireless 1029 Telecommunications Collocation Facility under California Government Code Section 65850.6, for 1030 which a 6509(a) approval is not being requested. This section provides the requirements, standards 1031 and regulations for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility for which subsequent 1032 collocation is a permitted use pursuant to California law. Only those facilities that fully comply with 1033 the eligibility requirements set forth in California Government Code Section 65850.6, or its 1034 successor provision, and which strictly adhere to the requirements and regulations set forth in this 1035 section shall qualify as a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

1036 B. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined as follows:

Exhibit A, Page 30 1037 1. "Collocation Facility" means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including 1038 antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless 1039 telecommunications collocation facility.

1040 2. "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" means equipment and network components 1041 such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems 1042 that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.

1043 3. "Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility" means a wireless 1044 telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.

1045 C. Procedures. An application for a Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility under 1046 California Government Code Section 65850.6 shall be processed in the same manner as an 1047 application for 6409(a) approval is processed, except that where the process requires justification 1048 for the 6409(a) approval, the applicant shall instead provide the justification for a Wireless 1049 Telecommunications Collocation Facility under California Government Code Section 65850.6.

1050 D. Requirements. All requirements, regulations, and standards set forth in this chapter for a 1051 wireless telecommunications facility shall apply to a wireless telecommunications collocation 1052 facility; provided, however, the following shall also apply to a wireless telecommunications 1053 collocation facility:

1054 1. The applicant for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit shall describe 1055 or depict:

1056 (a) The wireless telecommunications collocation facility as it will be initially built; 1057 and

1058 (b) All collocations at full build-out, including, but not limited to, all antennas, 1059 antenna support structures, and accessory equipment.

1060 2. Any collocation shall use screening methods substantially similar to those used on the 1061 existing wireless telecommunications facilities unless other optional screening methods 1062 are specified in the conditions of approval.

1063 3. A wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit shall not be approved unless an 1064 environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration 1065 was prepared and approved for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

1066 E. Permitted Use. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a subsequent 1067 collocation on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use only if all 1068 of the following requirements are satisfied:

1069 1. The wireless telecommunications collocation facility:

1070 (a) Was approved after January 1, 2007, by discretionary permit;

Exhibit A, Page 31 1071 (b) Was approved subject to an environmental impact report, negative 1072 declaration, or mitigated negative declaration; and

1073 (c) Otherwise complies with the requirements of California Government Code 1074 Section 65850.6(b), or its successor provision, for addition of a collocation 1075 facility to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, including, but not 1076 limited to, compliance with all performance and maintenance requirements, 1077 regulations and standards in this chapter and the conditions of approval in the 1078 wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit; and

1079 2. The collocations were specifically considered when the relevant environmental 1080 document was prepared for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

1081 3. Before collocation, the applicant seeking collocation shall obtain all other applicable non- 1082 discretionary permits, as required pursuant to the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

1083 F. New or Amended Permit. Except as otherwise provided above, approval of a new or 1084 amended permit shall be required when the facility is modified other than by collocation in 1085 accordance with this section, or the proposed collocation:

1086 1. Increases the height of the existing permitted telecommunications tower or otherwise 1087 changes the bulk, size, location, or any other physical attributes of the existing permitted 1088 wireless telecommunications collocation facility unless specifically permitted under the 1089 conditions of approval applicable to such wireless telecommunications collocation 1090 facility; or

1091 2. Adds any microwave dish or other antenna not expressly permitted to be included in a 1092 collocation facility by the conditions of approval.

1093 G. Appeals. Notwithstanding any provision of the Mill Valley Municipal Code to the contrary, 1094 including but not limited to Section 20.62.060, any applicant may appeal a decision by the zoning 1095 administrator. The appeal must be filed within 10 days from the zoning administrator's decision. The 1096 appeal must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. 1097 The City manager shall serve as the appellate authority for all appeals of all actions of the zoning 1098 administrator taken pursuant to this section. The City shall provide notice for an administrative 1099 hearing by the City manager. The City manager shall limit its review to whether the project should 1100 be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in this section. The decision of the City 1101 manager shall be final and not subject to any further administrative appeals.

1102 20.73.160 Business License

1103 A permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be a substitute for any business license otherwise 1104 required under the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

Exhibit A, Page 32 1105 20.73.170 Emergency Deployment

1106 In the event of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, or when otherwise warranted by 1107 conditions that the zoning administrator deems to constitute an emergency, the zoning 1108 administrator may approve the installation and operation of a temporary wireless 1109 telecommunications facility (e.g., a cell on wheels or "COW"), which is subject to such reasonable 1110 conditions that the zoning administrator deems necessary.

1111 20.73.180 Operation and Maintenance Standards

1112 A. All wireless telecommunications facilities must comply at all times with the following 1113 operation and maintenance standards. All necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by 1114 the permittee, owner, or operator within 48 hours:

1115 1. After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated 1116 maintenance agent; or

1117 2. After permittee, owner, operator, or any designated maintenance agent receives 1118 notification from a resident or the zoning administrator.

1119 B. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory 1120 equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility 1121 site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:

1122 1. General dirt and grease;

1123 2. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;

1124 3. Rust and corrosion;

1125 4. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;

1126 5. Missing, discolored, or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;

1127 6. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;

1128 7. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and

1129 8. Any damage from any cause.

1130 C. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be 1131 maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator of the facility shall 1132 be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any 1133 approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the zoning 1134 administrator.

1135 D. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance

Exhibit A, Page 33 1136 or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation.

1137 E. Each facility shall be operated and maintained at all times in compliance with applicable 1138 federal regulations, including FCC radio frequency emissions standards.

1139 F. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply at all times with the noise 1140 regulations of this chapter and shall be operated and maintained in a manner that will minimize 1141 noise impacts to surrounding residents. Except for emergency repairs, any testing and maintenance 1142 activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 1143 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, unless alternative hours are 1144 approved by the zoning administrator. Backup generators, if permitted, shall only be operated 1145 during periods of power outages or for testing.

1146 G. If a flagpole is used for camouflaging a wireless telecommunications facility, flags shall be 1147 flown and shall be properly maintained at all times.

1148 H. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance 1149 with the standards set forth in this section and the conditions of approval.

1150 20.73.190 No Dangerous Conditions or Obstructions Allowed

1151 No person shall install, use or maintain any wireless telecommunications facility which in whole or in 1152 part rests upon, in or over any public sidewalk or parkway, when such installation, use or 1153 maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or 1154 when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other 1155 governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of 1156 pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or 1157 egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, 1158 hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects 1159 permitted at or near said location.

1160 20.73.200 Permit Expiration

1161 A. A permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of 10 years, 1162 unless the Planning commission authorizes a longer period or pursuant to another provision of the 1163 Mill Valley Municipal Code the permit lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of such period, the 1164 permit shall expire.

1165 B. A permittee may apply for extensions of its permit in increments of no more than ten years 1166 and no sooner than twelve months prior to expiration of the permit.

1167 C. If a permit has not expired at the time an application is made for an extension, the zoning 1168 administrator may administratively extend the term of the permit for subsequent ten-year terms 1169 upon verification of continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which 1170 the application was originally approved, as well as any other applicable provisions of the Mill Valley 1171 Municipal Code that are in effect at the time the permit extension is granted.

Exhibit A, Page 34 1172 1. At the zoning administrator's discretion, additional studies and information may be 1173 required of the applicant.

1174 2. If the zoning administrator determines that the facility is nonconforming or that 1175 additional conditions of approval are necessary to bring the facility into compliance with 1176 the provisions of the Mill Valley Municipal Code that are then in effect at the time of 1177 permit expiration, the zoning administrator shall refer the extension request to the 1178 Planning commission.

1179 D. The request for an extension shall be decided by the Planning commission if the permit 1180 expired before the application is made for an extension or if the zoning administrator refers the 1181 matter to the Planning commission. After notice and a public hearing, the Planning commission may 1182 approve, conditionally approve, or deny the extension.

1183 20.73.210 Cessation of Use or Abandonment

1184 A. A wireless telecommunications facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly 1185 removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or 1186 more consecutive days. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall 1187 not become effective until all users cease using the facility.

1188 B. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use 1189 of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing 1190 or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility shall 1191 provide written notice to the zoning administrator of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days 1192 or more.

1193

Exhibit A, Page 35 1194 C. Failure to inform the zoning administrator of cessation or discontinuation of operations of 1195 any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be 1196 grounds for:

1197 1. Prosecution;

1198 2. Revocation or modification of the permit;

1199 3. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this chapter or conditions of approval 1200 of the permit;

1201 4. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures established under 1202 the Mill Valley Municipal Code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's 1203 expense; and

1204 5. Any other remedies permitted under the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

1205 20. 73.220 Removal and Restoration, Permit Expiration, Revocation or Abandonment

1206 A. Permittee's removal obligation. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any 1207 extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the 1208 permittee, owner or operator shall remove its wireless telecommunications facility and restore the 1209 site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other 1210 improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and 1211 safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be 1212 removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the City. If the facility is located 1213 on private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the 1214 expense of timely removal and restoration.

1215 B. Failure to remove. Failure of the permittee, owner, or operator to promptly remove its 1216 facility and restore the property within 30 days after expiration, earlier termination, or revocation of 1217 the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of the Mill Valley Municipal Code, 1218 and be grounds for:

1219 1. Prosecution;

1220 2. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this chapter or conditions of approval 1221 of permit;

1222 3. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures established under 1223 the Mill Valley Municipal Code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's 1224 expense;or

1225 4. Any other remedies permitted under the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

1226

Exhibit A, Page 36 1227 C. Summary removal. In the event the zoning administrator determines that the condition or 1228 placement of a wireless telecommunications facility located in the public right-of-way constitutes a 1229 dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat to public safety, 1230 or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, 1231 "exigent circumstances"), the zoning administrator may cause the facility to be removed summarily 1232 and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall be served 1233 upon the person who owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property 1234 removed shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified 1235 following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the facility 1236 shall be treated as abandoned property.

1237 D. Removal of facilities by City. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with 1238 nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any 1239 liability to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of 1240 removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the City may 1241 collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the 1242 amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with the Mill Valley 1243 Municipal Code. Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility. 1244 Neither the permittee nor the owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such 1245 facility not timely removed by the permittee, owner, or operator after notice, or removed by the 1246 City due to exigent circumstances.

1247 20.73.230 Effect on Other Ordinances

1248 Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not relieve a person from complying with any 1249 other applicable provision of the Mill Valley Municipal Code, including but not limited to obtaining 1250 any necessary encroachment or building permits. In the event of a conflict between any provision of 1251 this chapter and other provisions of the Mill Valley Municipal Code, this chapter shall control.

1252 20.73.240 Effect of State or Federal Law

1253 In the event that state or federal law prohibits discretionary permitting requirements for certain 1254 wireless telecommunications facilities, the permits required by this chapter for those facilities shall 1255 be deemed to be ministerial permits. For those facilities, in lieu of a conditional use permit, a 1256 ministerial permit shall be required prior to installation or modification of a wireless 1257 telecommunications facility and all provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to any such facility 1258 with the exception that the required permit shall be reviewed and administered as a ministerial 1259 permit by the zoning administrator rather than as a discretionary permit. Any conditions of 1260 approval set forth in this chapter or deemed necessary by the zoning administrator shall be imposed 1261 and administered as reasonable time, place and manner rules.

Exhibit A, Page 37 ATTACHMENT 2: Public Comments

ATTACHMENT 2: PUBLIC COMMENT Danielle Staude

From: Katharine Spencer Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:02 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Potential 4G/5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

Dear Danielle Staude,

We have recently become aware of the possible arrival of 4G & 5G wireless networks in our neighborhood and we arc very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from these 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

We urge you to please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Yours sincerely,

David & Katharine Spencer 138 Kipling Drive Mill Valley

1 Danielle Staude

From: Liz Specht Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:55 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Please: No small cell towers

Dear Danielle,

We are concerned about the potential adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers, as proposed by AT&T and Verizon.

Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley until conclusive data is available about health risks.

Sincerely, Liz and Ed Specht 102 Nelson Avenue Mill Valley, CA

1 Danielle Staude

From: Tracy Ferm < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:34 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: SG

Dear Danielle- I am very concerned about the possible side effects of the 5 G. My husband is a cancer survivor and I have cancer at present. There are power poles right in front of our home on Montford. PLEASEhelp to research this. Is there a shark in the water? Thank-you! Tracy

1 Danielle Staude

From: Lisa Salkever Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:12 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Please prevent installment of smAII cell phone towers in Mill Valley

Dear Danielle Staude,

I and my family are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Thank you, Lisa Salkever

1 Danielle Staude

' From: Kier Holmes Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 6:28 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: cell towers

Danielle Staude, J urge you to stop the imminent placement of dangerous 40 and 50 Small Cell Towers on telephone poles in Mill Valley. For the health of our children, please do whatever you can to stop this! Thank you! Kier Holmes, and family

1 Danielle Staude

From: Lynne Frame <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:05 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: small cell towers -- please no

Dear Ms. Staude,

I am writing from overseas to register my grave concern about the placement of small cell towers throughout Mill Valley in the coming months - or ever. As a person with several constitutional sensitivities, I work constantly to minimize my exposure to electromagnetic radiation and I am extremely concerned that the introduction of these towers throughout our neighborhoods and in close proximity to homes and schools will make avoiding such exposure nearly impossible for me, my family, and our community. Although we cannot be absolutely sure of the level of harm this will have on various individuals, it is a risk to at least some that is not worth the potential benefits to others.

Please count me as a community member who is strongly opposed to such installations.

Respectfully yours, Lynne Frame

38 Helens Lane Mill Valley, CA 94941

1 Danielle Staude

From: Sarah Wilson Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:20 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: SG cell towers

Hi Danielle,

We are very concerned about the potential adverse health and environmental risks associated with the installment of SG cell towers around Mill Valley. Please do what you can to stop the installation of these towers.

Thank you, Sarah & Jason Wilson send from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Leslie Myers Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:01 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: SG in Mill Valley - Please oppose it!

Dear Senior Planner Danielle Staude,

Regarding placement of SG Mini Cell Towers in Mill Valley, we are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers.

We do not want high frequency energy waves pumped into our neighborhoods. The long term impact to the health of our residents is unknown.

SG is not necessary. Wired networks, both optical fiber and copper, are a much better option than the potentially harmful SG wireless networks. Fiber optic cable is faster, more secure, more reliable, more energy efficient, more cost effective, healthier and safer than wireless networks.

Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Thank you!

Best and be well. Leslie Myers

1 Danielle Staude

From: Pamela Alma Weymouth Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:29 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: No cell towers pis!

Pis don't place cell towers on phone lines near homestead or in mill valley! Let's keep this a healthy green community with less radiation waves!! Please! Mother of twin boys, journalist. Thank you.

We should get to vote on this!

Sent from modern device while negotiating twin truces & juggling flaming knives

Read more masterpieces at:pamela alma.org

1 Danielle Staude

From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:16 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Adverse effects on humans from microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers

Dear Ms Staude,

We are extremely concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installation of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley and preserve our healthy environment that has made Mill Valley the wonderful place to live. I am a 40 year resident and I believe that this installation would cause me as well as many other health-conscious residents to move out.

Sincerely, Pamela Redmond 290 Sycamore Av

1 Danielle Staude

From: Sarab Stewart Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:40 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Please prevent Cell Tower installation in Mill Valley

Dear Ms. Staude, I have been alerted to the plan to install 4G and 5G cell towers in Mill Valley. As a resident, I am very concerned about the serious adverse health risks and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from these towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in all of the of Mill Valley area, including Strawberry. I appreciate your attention to this most serious matter.

Thank you, Sarab Stewart

1 Danielle Staude

From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:14 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: please prevent installment of 4G, SG Small Cell Towers

Dear Danielle Staude,

I am very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley. Sincerely,

Ursula Hanrahan

1 Danielle Staude

From: Megan Mokri Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:14 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Small cell towers

Dear Danielle Staude,

I am very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely, Megan Mokri

1 Danielle Staude

From: Barbara Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:43 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Sg small cell towers

Dear Danielle Staude, We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley

Barbara Bowman Resident of mill valley for 18 years

All thumbs Barbara Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Victoria Ritchie Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:06 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: cell towers in mill valley

Dear Ms Staude,

Absolutely - Mill Valley cannot allow this threat to its residents' health. Can you please do all that you can to stop this action from going forward. I'm sure that a host of others feel the same as I do. This is just to throw my hat into the ring.

Thank you so much.

A Ritchie downtown mill valley resident

1 Danielle Staude

From: Alice Torres Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 6:56 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4g Sg

NO to SG and 4G antennae's! !

Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: John Feeney Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 6:54 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4G and SG Cell Towers

We are opposed to their placement in our residential neighborhoods. John and Joyce Feeney

CONFIDENTIALITY - This e-mail message and any attachments thereto are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains a private, confidential communication protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

1 Danielle Staude

From: Cory Mason Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:31 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4G and SG Small Cell Towers

Dear Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Cory Mason

1 Danielle Staude

From: Anne Smith Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:39 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Please keep us safe and healthy

Dear Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Anne, Kelly, Will and Jim Smith 132 Sycamore Ave

1 Danielle Staude

From: Elizabeth Schumacher < [email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:38 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Small cell towers a health risk

"Dear Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Schumacher schumacher interiors 49 Loring Ave Mill Valley, CA 94941 415 509 2434

1 Danielle Staude

From: email4brad Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:15 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4G and SG small cell towers

lol towers"Dear Danielle Staude,

My wife and I are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely, Brad Summers

Sent from my iPad

1 Danielle Staude

From: Stephen Burger Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:11 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Wireless Telecom Towers

Dear Ms. Staude,

I was informed that there is a proposal to install 4G and 5G towers in Mill Valley. Until the science on the health effects of these towers is better understood, I am opposed to the installation of these devices in Mill Valley

Thank you, Stephen Burger 386 E Blithedale, MV

Stephen Burger [email protected] Linkedln: stephencburger 206-369-5889

1 Danielle Staude

From: Mitch Wortzman Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 9:36 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell Phone Towers

Hi Danielle, I just received an e-mail re: the addition of 40 and 50 cell cabling, transmitters, antennas in the City.

How can I find out exactly what is being planned, and where the antennas are being located?

I successfully led an effort years ago to stop the addition of antennas on the Sequoia theater. I recall that the cell companies may have had Federal rights to expand their antennas, but that there was local ability to protect citizens including precedent to limit towers near schools.

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Wortzman mwortzman @yahoo.com 415-336-4549 cell

1 Danielle Staude

From: Kris_Doug Saeltzer Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 6:21 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Small Cell Tower

Dear Senior Planner Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installation of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Kris & Doug Saeltzer

8 Meadow Ridge Drive

Corte Madera, CA 94925

Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:52 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: RE: Telecommunication: Good background material for our meeting

Hi Danielle, Just a quick message to thank you for referring Paige and Rachel to me. I have been in email communication with them and attended their meeting tonight. On reviewing all the links they sent me I do share their concerns about the 4 and Sg wireless issue. I will send our MVCAN Eco Team background information on the issue and let them know of the Sept 6 date when the Mill Valley City Council will discuss it.

I hope all is going well for you! Marilyn Price 415-381-2941 ------Original Message ------Subject: Telecommunication: Good background material for our meeting From: Danielle Staude < [email protected] > Date: Fri, August 17, 2018 8:21 am To: Rachel Gaunt < [email protected] > Cc: Paige Hutson < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected] >

Hi Marilyn,

I am playing matchmaker. Paige and Rachel (part of this email) are working to get The word out about their concerns about the upcoming move to 4 and Sg for wireless telecommunications and are also working on a campaign to educate the community about healthy households in terms of such issues.

Below is some information, and I know they would be most happy to attend an eco-warrior meeting to explain more.

Cheers, Danielle Staude

Sent from my i-phone

On Aug 10, 2018, at 4: 22 PM, Rachel Gaunt < [email protected]> < mailto: [email protected]> > wrote:

Hello Danielle

In case it's useful background, here's the one pager that we sent Kate Sears before our meeting yesterday. From our email exchange I can tell that you are already up to speed on a lot of the information, but in case there's anything that is new and relevant, I am including it for you and Jill.

Have a great weekend! our best Rachel and Paige

1 Hello Kate,

We hope you are having an enjoyable weekend.

In preparation for our meeting on Thursday, we thought the following "one pager" with related backup studies and data would offer you a greater scope of the science and key issues at hand:

1. There has been an extraordinary rise in our exposure to wireless radiation over the past decade, from smart phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers, iPads and smart meters. (One scientist estimated that this in an increase of a quintillion times the amount of exposure.

2. This wireless exposure is harmful, affecting our bodies on a cellular level and causing disease of all kinds. Thousands of peer reviewed studies worldwide show clear evidence of the harm from wireless exposure, with a significant rise in brain tumors, a clear indicator of the impact.

Related studies: Experts Find "Clear Evidence" of Cancer from Cell Phone Radiation in NTP Study, April 10, 2018< https://www.saferemr.com/2018/01/nationa1-toxicology-program-peer­ public.html > and Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study< https: // ehtrust.org/worlds-la rqest-a n i mal-study-on-cel I-tower- radiation-confirms-cancer­ li n k/ > - - March 22, 2018 and The Bioinitiative Report: 2017< http://www.bioinitiative.org/whats­ new-2/ > which offers a comprehensive overview of studies that give a rationale for biologically based exposure standards for low intensity electromagnetic radiation.

3. The wireless industry is aware of the dangers and rather than try to convince us that wireless is safe, they are using "doubt" to confuse and perpetuate the debate. Their industry funded studies are in marked contrast to independent studies which show strong evidence of harm.

Related Article, "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe< https: //www.thenation.com/a rticle/how-big-wi reless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are­ safe-a-special-investigat ion/ > ".

4. There is a race between wireless providers to "own" the public and private space, with Wi-Fi strong enough to stream TV shows on your phone even in the street. Sg is being heralded as the next and wonderful new era by wireless companies with deep pockets, but it represents a significant increase in wireless exposure and is untested.

Related Articles: Environmental Health Trust Fact Sheet on SG< https://ehtrust.org/wp­ content/uploads/SG What-You-Need-to-Know V4-1.pdf > and Environmental Health Trust Research on SG and Health< https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-Sq-and-health/ >

5. AT&T and Verizon are keen to win back market share lost to Comcast and are now entering the Wi-Fi space using Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) on telephone poles to initially beam 4G DAS and then SG into our homes, every 2 to 5 poles. They have already been stringing cable and preparing telephone poles in unincorporated Mill Valley with indication that they intend to install CPMRA's within two months, despite having no permits from the County.

Related Article, Wireless Radiation Coming to a Lamppost Near You< https: //www. westonaprice .orq/hea Ith-top ics/environmental-toxins/microwave-radiation­ coming-lamppost-near/ >, December, 2017.

6. Firemen have been exempted from having to have these powerful Small Cells, (CPMRA's) next to their station, after a study showing that all the firemen tested had abnormal brain scans after exposure, even at low levels of radiation.

Related article, KPIX news report< https://www.youtube.com/watch?time continue=2&v=61h vuBujwO>.

7. Fiber Optic cable is a faster, more secure, more reliable, more energy efficient, healthier and 2 safer option for us. a. There is no radiation exposure b. There is less fire risk from overloading telephone poles c. There is no danger of loss of connection or communication in a fire if a Sg cell goes down d .. Emergency response is faster and more accurate because of better location detection e. And in the long run it is much cheaper

Related article, "Reinventing Wires"< https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180126005137/en/Wireless-Networks­ Fast-Secu re-Reliable-Energy-Efficient-Wired>

8. Marin residents need an immediate moratorium on all CPMRA installations, (both 4g DAS and Sg) to give us time to rework and strengthen the current Country Wireless Ordinance to protect ourselves, as the cities of Petaluma and San Jose have successfully done.

We look forward to meeting you and to a productive discussion. Thank you for making the time in your busy schedule to meet with us.

Our Best,

Rachel Gaunt and Paige Hutson

Rachel Gaunt, Co-Founder COURAGE CORPS< http://www.couragecorps.com/ > I 415.381.8208 Enlightened business, backed by science.

3 Danielle Staude

From: Marin Oyster Company, Inc. Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 7:50 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell towers in Scott Valley

Ms. Staude, please do not approve small or any more Cellular Transmitters in Scott Valley. Phones work fine anywhere one goes, begging the question why it's being proposed. We are rational here, no tin foil hats. However, radiation from transmission equipment is a documented health problem, closer proximity being the higher risk. My family is adamant in our opposition to the unnecessary increase in health risks to the community. Thank you for not approving this.

Toussaint Family 9 Midhill Dr. 707-338-2188 cell

Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Suzanne Leon Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:17 PM To: Danielle Staude Cc: Ms. Renee Marler; Lynne Frame; Tim Standing; Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hoskins; Madeleine Sklar; Mr. & Mrs. Scott Sklar; Raushan Akhmedyarova; Gina & Chris Cooper; Robin McKee; Linda Lukas; Cathy Down Subject: SG is even more invasive than 4G

San Rafael Residents Speak Out Against SG Microwave Cell Tower Installations http://www.marinij.c(irn/general-news/20180821/san-rafael-rcsidcnts-take-prc-emptive-strike-against-5g-installations\ By Keri Brenner, Marin Independent Journal Packed house at San Rafael City Council Monday night. Many stood and applauded in a show of support for city regulations banning 50 cellphone towers. San Rafael residents have launched a campaign to block cellphone companies from attempting to build 5G towers in Marin. The 50 towers, which would allow for faster and higher­ capacity video streaming and other transmissions, could exacerbate health symptomsalready suspected as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields, Vicki Sievers, of the EMF Safety Network, told the San Rafael City Council on Monday. According to the EMF Safety Network website, those symptoms can include fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, ringing in the ears and increased cancer risk. '"We've experienced 20, 3G, 4G and now, on the horizon, is a fifth generation called millimeter wave technology," Sievers said after her presentation that brought standing applause from about 20 people at the packed meeting. "Around the world, doctors and scientists arc gravely alarmed about the biological and physiological effects of that technology." Sievers said no permits for 5G so-called "small cell" towers have been issued in Marin as of yet - though they have in other Bay Arca cities - and she suspects they are being planned in San Rafael and Marin. "(We want) amendments to the current telecommunications ordinance - which has not been reviewed since 2004 - that protect residential areas, schools and parks through setbacks and attention to power profiles," Sievers said in an email Tuesday. According to Sievers, San Anselmo, Fairfax and Mill Valley are working on strengthening their cell tower ordinances. '"Our effort has to dn with making pre-emptive strikes before Verizon, AT&T (and others) actually make formal applications to each town and city,'· Sievers said. 'There arc no applications in San Rafael to date, but there surely have been permits granted and installations begun in other Bay Arca cities." ln May, Verizon was forced to withdraw its application to build two "small cell" towers in Sebastopol after four months of heavy opposition by residents and attorneys for the EMF Safety Network. "Several of us San Rafael residents went to the (San Rafael) council on Feb. 20 (when the Sebastopol issue arose), urging them to prevent such debacles here,'' Sievers said. San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips said Tuesday he was not aware of any ongoing activity to strengthen or upgrade cell tower regulations in the city and there were no immediate plans for further discussion. "It kind of came a little bit out of the blue," he said of Monday's presentation. EMFs include wireless radiation emitted by cell towers, cell and cordless phones, smart meters, smart grid, Wi-Fi and computers, power lines, fluorescent lights, indoor wiring and other electronic devices, according to the EMF Safety Network. According tn the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the jury is still out on the health risks of exposure to EMFs. "Studies have shown that some workers exposed to high magnetic fields have increased cancer rates," the CDC reported on its website. ''But such associations do not necessarily show that EMF exposures cause cancer (any more than the springtime association of robins and daffodils shows that one causes the other). Scientists have looked carefully at all the EMF evidence, hut they disagree about the health effects of EMFs except to say that better information is needed." According to the website whatis5g.info, the 5G "small cell" tower "will include the higher millimeter wave frequencies never before used for internet and communications technology. These waves do not travel easily through buildings so 5G will require millions of new cell towers. The wireless telecom industry is aggressively seeking to outfit nearly every lamppost and utility pole around the country with a wireless 'small cell' antenna beaming hazardous radiation next to, or into our homes, 24/7." San Rafael resident Chandu Vyas said Monday he is wary of EMPs after a health challenge about five years ago. He said he developed severe and constant headaches after a smart meter was installed at his 1 home. The headaches went away after he "opted out" and had the smart meter at his property removed. "I don't want to go through the same health problem again," he told the City Council. "I ask your help." Kiah Bosy of Chi Home Design showed the council how her EMF meters ratcheted up to high pitch when she walked toward a TV screen in front of the council chambers. "It's serious," she said. "We're microwaving each other."

2 Danielle Staude

From: js Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:57 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Action Alert

Danielle Staude

I feel that the 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers should NOT be installed in our community until further research is done and approved that it is 100% safe to do so.

Joe Scafidi Mill Valley, CA

1 Danielle Staude

From: holly downes Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:15 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: SG towers

Dear Danielle, Please review your findings about the micro towers and exposure to those living close to them. Scientific studies show the heath risks far out weigh the benefits. I strongly encourage you to decline their placement. sincerely, Dr. Holly Downes

1 Danielle Staude

From: Carol Lenherr Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:27 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: NO to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

Hello Ms. Staude,

We appreciate the work you do on behalf of the residents of Mill Valley.

Though we are unfortunately unable to make the meeting on September 6, we would like to communicate that we do not support the proposed Ordinance for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Carol Lenherr 32 Midhill Drive

1 Danielle Staude

From: ru4morningsun < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 5:19 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Stop installation of small cell towers

Dear Senior Planner Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installation of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Debbie Alstad 132 Morningsun Ave Mill Valley

1 Danielle Staude

From: Suzanne Leon Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:26 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Fwd: No on 4G and SG cell towers around Mill Valley!!!

PS. I am a resident at 8 Lower Dr, Mill Valley

Begin forwarded message:

From: Suzanne Leon Subject: No on 4G and SG cell towers around Mill Valley!!! Date: August 19, 2018 at 10:54:03 PM PDT To: [email protected]

Dear Danielle Staude,

I am extremely opposed to the installation of 4G and 5G cell towers around Mill Valley! It's bad enough that our bodies and environment are bombarded by all the toxins and chemicals in our food supply, homes and land along with pollution from our vehicles, jet streams, water, depletion of our ozone layer. ... but EMFs are a serious health hazard that we haven't begun to fully understand. I was enraged that we had smart meters installed by our utility companies, and we are inundated by wifi, cell phones, etc everywhere. We turn off our wifi at night, we don't have microwaves, bluetooth headsets, smart TVs or other gadgets ..... our desktop computers are ethernet connected. We have no control over the rest of the neighborhood, or the rest of society. We chose not to live near power companies or large power lines. I NEVER walk through full body scanners at the airport and always ask for a patdown.

There have been enough cancers in my extended family - do not help create more! PLEASE prevent this insanity!

Yours Truly,

Suzanne Leon

1 Danielle Staude

From: Gina Cooper Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:45 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Small cell towers

Dear Danielle Staude, I am very concerned about the addition of small cell phone towers around my neighborhood in Mill Valley. Please prevent the installation of these towers. Thankyou, Gina Cooper 26 Somerset Lane Mill Valley

Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Graham Brandt Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:41 PM To: Danielle Staude Cc: Talia Brandt Subject: 4G & SG Small Cell Towers

Dear Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley until such time as they have been further studied and assurances can be made regarding their health and environmental impact.

Sincerely, Graham & Talia Brandt 3 Upperhill Road

Sent from my gPad

1 Danielle Staude

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 7:23 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: cell towers in mill valley

Dear Danielle:

My family and are very concerned about serious advesrse health and environmental impacts due to microwave radiation emitted from cell toweres, including 4G and 5g towers. Please do not allow the installation of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley. Sincerely, Benson L. Kaukonen and Family

1 Danielle Staude

From: Nancy Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:46 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Opposed to 5G Cell towers

Hello Danielle

I am extremely concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. There needs to be far more research and understanding before jumping on this corporate bandwagon.

Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely Nancy Glasenk 29 Vasco Drive

1 Danielle Staude

From: Dorothy McQuown Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:45 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell Towers

Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please put this topic on your Agenda and prevent the installation of these dangerous Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennae in Unincorporated Marin. Please help us maintain local control in the face of corporate pressure.

Sincerely,

Dorothy MCQuown, Ph. D.

Sent from my iPad

1 Danielle Staude

From: Suzanne Leon Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 10:54 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: No on 4G and SG cell towers around Mill Valley!!!

Dear Danielle Staude,

I am extremely opposed to the installation of 4G and SG cell towers around Mill Valley! It's bad enough that our bodies and environment are bombarded by all the toxins and chemicals in our food supply, homes and land along with pollution from our vehicles, jet streams, water, depletion of our ozone layer. ... but EMFs are a serious health hazard that we haven't begun to fully understand. I was enraged that we had smart meters installed by our utility companies, and we are inundated by wifi, cell phones, etc everywhere. We turn off our wifi at night, we don't have microwaves, bluetooth headsets, smart TVs or other gadgets ..... our desktop computers are ethernet connected. We have no control over the rest of the neighborhood, or the rest of society. We chose not to live near power companies or large power lines. I NEVER walk through full body scanners at the airport and always ask for a patdown.

There have been enough cancers in my extended family- do not help create more! PLEASEprevent this insanity!

Yours Truly,

Suzanne Leon

1 Danielle Staude

From: Caitlin Greene Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 10:28 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Wirelss Telecommuications Facilities

"Dear Danielle Staude,

We are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely, Caitlin Greene 415-595-6863 26 Azalea Dr. Mill Valley, CA 94941

1 Danielle Staude

From: John Palmer Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:53 PM To: Danielle Staude Cc: Jim Mccann Subject: Proposed plan to install 4G and SG towers on power poles in Mill Valley

Dear Ms Staude,

My family and I are very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers.

Please do not permit the installment of these antennae, which are dangerous and unnecessary, in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

John Palmer Montgomery Partners 100 Shoreline Highway Suite 160B Mill Valley, CA 94941 (415) 332 4440 (0) (415) 272 1728 (C)

1 Danielle Staude

From: Deena Grady Berger Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:46 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell Phone 4G & SG Towers - Mill Valley

Importance: High

Dear Ms. Staude,

My family is opposed to the installation of Small Cell Towers in and around Mill Valley. One of the reasons we chose to live in Mill Valley is that it is a very environmentally-aware and health-conscious community. There could be serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. We DO NOT want to be the "testing ground" or the "lab rats" for this technological advancement. We have seen no concrete evidence that these radiation­ emitting towers are safe, only evidence to the contrary. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley. Thank you!

Very truly yours,

Deena Grady Berger, J.D. District Leader Volunteer California Congressional District 2 dgberger22 @minds pring. com t 415.686.8778 humanesociety.org

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization. HSUS and our affiliates provide hands-on care and services to more than 100.000 animals each year. We are the leading animal advocacy organization, seeking a humane world for people and animals alike. We are driving transformational change in the U.S. and around the world by combating large-scale cruelties such as puppy mills, animal fighting, factory farming, seal slaughter, horse cruelty, captive hunts and the wildlife trade.

1 Danielle Staude

From: Robert Mithun Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:41 PM To: Danielle Staude Cc: Francine SF Subject: My Concern RE: SG Small Cell Phone Towers in MV

Dear Danielle Staude,

I want you to know we are concerned about the possible adverse effects of 5G cell phone towers in Mill Valley on our MV residents as well a local animals. We expect more information about the effects of 5G microwave radiation will be available in the near future and believe a better decision can be made about this then. We understand and appreciate that you are assessing the sentiment of Mill Valley residents regarding this issue.

We do not have a concern about much lower frequency EMF radiation in general, such as AM, FM, Citizens' Band, and amateur radio or earlier generation cell phone radiation. These have been shown not to be harmful to humans in the doses we are usually currently exposed to. These new, much higher frequency, microwave radiation radiations do have very different biologic effects than those lower frequencies and we advise that we NOT act to permit the construction of these towers until we know more accurately what the risks to us would be.

Thank you for your consideration.

Robert J. Mithun, MD Anne K. Fukutome, MD

1 Danielle Staude

From: Joel Yanowitz Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:18 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4G and SG Small Cell Towers

Dear Danielle Staude,

I am very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Please keep me informed as to the City's actions around this issue.

Sincerely,

Joel Y anowitz 3 Stanton Way Mill Valley

1 Danielle Staude

From: patricia lakner Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:11 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell towers in Mill Valley

Thank you very much for upgrading the cell tower system. Please keep up the good work.

Best, Pat Lakner

1 Danielle Staude

From: Joanne Lillich Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 1:12 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Cell Towers

Please take notice I understand that 4G and SG cell towers near us are dangerous, if so I am certainly against it. Thank you in advance, I was made aware of this! Sincerely, Joanne Lillich

Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Catherine Cook MacRae Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 12:36 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: no small cell towers please

Dear Danielle,

After reading the recent studies, my family is very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. What we currently have is working just fine and we don't need other towers.

Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley.

Sincerely, Catherine

Catherine Cook MacRae 106 Ryan Ave Mill Valley 94941 m 415.260.0453

1 Danielle Staude

From: Rachel Gaunt < [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 11:30 AM To: Danielle Staude Cc: Paige Hutson; Elisa Sarlatte; Jill McNeal; Stephanie Moulton-Peters; julieurban0l @gmail.com Subject: A strong wireless signal is coming from the telephone pole at 400 Summit

Good morning Danielle,

At our meeting on August 13th, Elisa and Jill expressed concern about what was "happening on the streets of Mill Valley" without their knowledge and that they, understandably, had a hard time covering the office and being out in the community "policing" all the AT&T and Verizon work crews to ensure they were compliant with the permitting process. As such, they were open to our "boots on the ground" support. We mentioned the dead oak tree at 400 Summit and have done some follow-up work on it that we are very concerned about and wanted to alert you.

Yesterday, Paige and I measured the levels coming from the equipment on two telephone poles on that corner and the levels were up in the "extreme range" on our meter. The residents in the house have been experiencing significant health issues ever since AT&T put installations up on the poles a few weeks ago - headaches, brain fog, sleep issues and generally feeling ill.

This is an urgent situation and we strongly recommend The City of Mill Valley investigate this situation right away. Unlike readings elsewhere in Mill Valley, where a lot of the prep work is being conducted, these installations are "live" and emitting extreme levels of radiation.

Our questions are:

1. Which company installed the equipment, (we think it is AT&T but are not completely sure)? 2. What type of wireless equipment is it, (40 DAS, 50, something else?) 3. Did they have permits to put this up? 4. If so, who granted the permits? 5. If not, is this illegal? Or does the current lighting pole agreements allow them to proceed unchecked.

We are deeply concerned that the same thing could happen anywhere in Mill Valley, especially if they were proceeding with permits, and would appreciate it if you could look into this as a matter of urgency. (If you want to meet us at the pole at 400 Summit and see the levels with our meters we are happy to meet you there.)

We look forward to hearing back from you.

Warmly, Rachel and Paige

R:1chf'l Gmrnt. Co-Founder COURAGECORPS I 415.381.8208

1 Enlightened business, backed by science.

2 Danielle Staude

From: Susan Kirsch Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 11:16 AM To: Danielle Staude Cc: city council Subject: No to SG Small Cell Towers in Mill Valley

Hi Danielle, I'm concerned about the potential adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and SG Small Cell Towers, as proposed by AT&T and Verizon. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley until conclusive data is available about health risks. Sincerely, Susan Kirsch 109 Ryan Avenue Mill Valley, CA Member, Freeman Park Neighborhood Association

1 Danielle Staude

From: mrsstim Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:13 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: 4G/5G small eel

I am very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused by the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please put this topic on your Agenda and prevent the installation of these dangerous Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennae in Unincorporated Marin. andrea ross unincorp marin

1 Danielle Staude

From: Joan Doc Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:14 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: Small cell towers

I am opposed to the installation of small cell towers in my neighborhood. Joan Dox 235 Marguerite Ave Sent from my iPhone

1 Danielle Staude

From: Heather & Ray Keane Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:42 PM To: Danielle Staude Subject: No CELL TOWERS in MILL VALLEY PLEASE

Dear Danielle Staude, We arc very concerned about the serious adverse health and environmental impacts caused hy the microwave radiation emitted from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please prevent the installment of these dangerous antennae in the City of Mill Valley. We have small children and would hate to fry their little brains. Thank you in advance for your consideration!

Kindly, Heather Keane

Warmly,

Heather

Heather Keane [email protected]

1 https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of- ways/ USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES & ORDINANCES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WIRELESS FACILITIES SMALL CELLS From coast to coast local governments are taking action to protect their communities from the unfettered deployment of 4G and 5G “small cell” wireless facilities. Several cities are passing ordinances that strictly limit the buildout. Many policymakers ask “What are other cities doing?” This page is a compilation of top examples of what cities are doing to protect their communities. For each city we provide a short synopsis along with a link to download the ordinance or policy. Scroll down to see the City and policy. Please download and share these examples with your community. Local ordinances note various purposes such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Some combine several of these approaches. Importantly, federal pre-emption has been exaggerated. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements for example. Please consider these two useful documents that came out of the efforts in Montgomery County Maryland by the law office of Mark C. Del Biancoand which clarify what localities can and cannot do in terms of procedural requirements for companies.

• 12/ 20/2018 “Summary of Proposed FCC Small Cell Order”: A critical read on the FCC order. • 10/2018 Memo: “Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments”

See more resources on 5G – including the research in health effects and impacts to people, trees and wildlife here. Wireless radiation has harmful biological effects levels far below government limits. Examples of areas addressed in these ordinances: LOCATION

• Prohibiting small cell installations in residential areas, certain streets, etc • Requiring installations to be a certain distance away from residences, schools, hospitals, and/or other installations • Specifying that installations must be relocated if/when they would interfere with a public project AESTHETICS / ENVIRONMENT

• Aesthetic, design, and noise requirements such as colocation, camouflage, height and light limits, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE / LEGAL

• Requiring that residents who will be within a certain distance of an installation be notified • Instating automatic time limits for permits • Requiring annual recertification fees • Requiring permittees to defend and indemnify the city from any liabilities arising from permits and the installation, operation and maintenance of small cell installations • Reserving the right to hire independent consultants at the applicant’s expense

OTHER

• Appointing a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network

EXAMPLES OF POLICIES & ORDINANCES Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians 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. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information to this page. 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. 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 Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network Ordinance modeled after Mill Valley’s:

• Small cells prohibited in residential zones • 1500 feet separation • City to study citywide fiberoptic cable network.

Fairfax, California: Urgency Ordinance No. 819 to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities News: Marin Independent Journal Fairfax to study fiber-optic broadband amid protest against 5G

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 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 Palos Vardes, 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 Vardes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Monterey California Monterey California has now included that it can deny outright an incomplete application “without prejudice”. That stops the shotclock, and it allows an application to be resubmitted all over again along with paying the fees again. to be updated soon. 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 PDF News Stories Tech Crunch” Bay Area Blocks 5G Deployment Over Cancer Concerns Marin Post Mill Valley Council Adopts Wireless Ordinance Protects Community 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 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 News Stories https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/27/ross-valley-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/ 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 Other Links http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/ 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” 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. 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

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 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 eCode Chapter 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 Sonoma, California: Report and Urgency Ordinance On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance. “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 PDF 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

This document also reviews other Cities 5G small cell policies. News stories “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

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

Holyoke, MA: Initial Request

• 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 Booneville, Arkansas, September 2018 Proposed Ordinance would limit cell towers to 250 ft max; industrial zones News Stories Cell tower ordinance read for first time at council meeting, Sept 5, 2018 OTHER ACTIONS Monterey, California: Verizon’s application denied Commissioners overruled staff and voted 7-0 to deny telecom giant Verizon’s small cell application Small Cell Towers nixed in 7-hour Monterey Planning Commission

• http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html

Los Angeles, California: Deal with Verizon; letter from Mayor to FCC

• “in exchange for amenities such as free Wi-Fi in Skid Row and at recreation centers, $400,000 of scholarship money, and launching an innovation center in the city, L.A. is charging Verizon just $175 per device per year for 10 years for up to 1,000 installations, plus the cost of electricity.” (LA Times) • “In a letter to the FCC, Mayor Eric Garcetti urged the commission to rewrite the ruling before its adoption, arguing that the decision would “insert confusion into the market, and sow mistrust between my technology team and the carriers with whom we have already reached agreements.”” (LA Times)

News Stories LA Times: 5G service rolls out — but not without controversy 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 September 2018 The Future of 5G: The Bitter Battle for Local Control

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you toPhysicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information.

Agenda Item No:

Meeting Date: December 17, 2018

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Department: Community Development Department

Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen (PJ/AG/RB/LG), City Manager Approval: ______Community Development Director

TOPIC: REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES

SUBJECT: 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

RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and adopt an urgency ordinance and policy resolution establishing application and review procedures for installation of small wireless facilities.

BACKGROUND: On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order geared toward speeding up the deployment of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way (hereafter, the “FCC ruling”). The FCC ruling, which will go into effect January 14, 2019, sets forth limitations on state and local government regulation of small wireless facilities that are placed on existing or new utility poles and street light standards located in the public right-of-way and private property. The FCC ruling clarifies and more specifically restricts the authority of state and local governments to regulate small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. This ruling is significant in that there are several nuances in small “cell” wireless facilities technology and application, which set them apart from other wireless communication facilities. On December 10, 2018, the FCC denied local governments’ motion for a “stay” (essentially a freeze) on the regulations but ruled that aesthetic restrictions would not go into effect until April 14, 2019. Therefore, it remains prudent for the City to address this matter as soon as possible.

On December 3, 2018, City Council was provided a comprehensive report covering the FCC ruling, the City’s current regulations for wireless communication facilities and recommended approaches for addressing small wireless facilities. A presentation was made by Michael Johnston, attorney (Telecom Law Firm) who summarized the implications of the FCC ruling and responded to detailed questions. In addition, staff presented possible text amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) (Title 14, Zoning) and a draft policy resolution to establish regulations and procedures for small wireless facilities.

______FOR CITY CLERK ONLY

Council Meeting: ______

Disposition: ______SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2

Forty (40) community members provided public comment on this topic. Following public comment and deliberation, the City Council directed staff to meet with the Council’s subcommittee on small wireless facilities to: 1) evaluate possible changes to the draft policy resolution; and 2) return to the Council with an urgency ordinance and a final, draft policy resolution. As part of this action, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the public comments and review the following information in considering further changes to the draft policy resolution:

• The Town of San Anselmo Wireless Facilities Ordinance; • The Town of Burlington (Massachusetts) Policy on Small Wireless Facilities Installation; and • 23-point list of recommendations presented to the Town of Fairfax from “5G-Free Marin.” for the City to consider in establishing regulations for small wireless facilities (Attachment 3).

On December 5, the City Council subcommittee (Councilmembers Colin and McCullough) met with City staff and attorney Michael Johnston to discuss the above documents and possible changes to the draft policy resolution. The subcommittee discussed the pros and cons of numerous, additional standards as well as the recommendations presented by members of the public. This extra time also allowed staff to work with Michael Johnston to refine the policy resolution language to include a greater level of detail in the definitions, application submittal requirements, and overall review process. As a result, changes have been made to the draft policy resolution to include the following:

• A re-drafting of the policy language; • Establishing a 500-foot setback from residential districts; • Establishing a 500-foot separation between small wireless facilities; • Requiring a public notice to properties within 500 feet of any proposed facility; and • Requiring an expanded review process for applications that do not meet the setback and separation requirements.

The subcommittee also recognized that the policy resolution would serve as a measure for evaluating applications, but that there is an expectation that this document may need to change over time. The ability to make changes to the policy resolution is needed for several reasons:

• Litigation has been filed challenging the FCC ruling. It is unclear whether the courts will issue a “stay” of the FCC ruling pending a final decision by the courts on the litigation. If there is a stay, the City will likely also put a hold on issuing approvals for small wireless facilities.

• As staff becomes more familiar with processing applications for small wireless facilities, the procedures and regulations presented in the policy resolution may need to be amended to ensure an effective review process and standards. If changes are necessary, staff will likely provide the City Council with an update and possible amendments to the policy resolution that address any challenges experienced in the review process that will be established as part of the adopted policy.

ANALYSIS: Staff has prepared an urgency ordinance and special procedures and regulations (including objective aesthetic standards) covered in a draft policy resolution for administering such facilities. These documents are intended to assure the City is prepared to evaluate new applications for small wireless facilities when the FCC ruling goes into effect. The urgency ordinance and policy resolution are attached (Attachments 1 and 2). The procedures and regulations have been updated to: 1) consider the public comments; 2) include some of the 23-point recommendations presented to the Town of Fairfax by “5G- Free Marin;” 3) address the direction from the City Council received at the December 3rd meeting; 4) and

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3

incorporate the recommendations of the City Council subcommittee meeting held on December 5. The following is a summary of the draft urgency ordinance and resolution (see Attachments 1 & 2):

Urgency Ordinance Ordinarily, to adopt an ordinance the City Council must approve introduction of the ordinance at a first meeting, and then finally adopt it at a second meeting not less than 5 days later. Additionally, once adopted, the ordinance normally will not become effective for 30 days. Using that procedure to adopt the attached ordinance would mean that it would not become effective until late February. Staff has concluded that there are important reasons for the City to have local small wireless facility regulations in place prior to the January 14, 2019 effective date of the FCC ruling,

Government Code Section 36937(b) authorizes a city council to adopt at a single meeting an “urgency” ordinance that will take effect immediately, in cases where the council makes findings that it is required “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety” and the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the city council. Staff is recommending that the Council adopt the attached ordinance as an urgency ordinance pursuant to this statute. Therefore, the proposed ordinance contains findings of fact setting forth why an urgency ordinance is necessary, and if adopted by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, the ordinance will go into effect immediately.

The urgency ordinance would make the following amendments to the City’s Municipal Code:

1. Amend SRMC Title 14 (Zoning), Section 14.03.030 (Definitions) to add a new definition for “small wireless facility.” This definition would mirror the definition established by the FCC.

2. Amend SRMC Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities) to specifically include small wireless facilities as part of the mix of wireless communication facilities.

3. Add new SRMC Section 14.16.361 (Small Wireless Communication Facilities). The text for this new section acknowledges that small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way are unique and subject to additional provisions and standards adopted by separate resolution of the City Council (policy resolution).

Policy Resolution The proposed policy resolution has been significantly revised from the initial draft to set forth policies, procedures, standards and limitations for small wireless facilities to include the following key sections:

1. Definitions- includes definitions used in the application and review process. For clarity, this section provides FCC-mandated definitions specifically related to small wireless facilities.

2. Required permits- requires a “Small Cell Permit” for all small wireless facilities. Although initially recommended by staff, an Administrative Design Review has been eliminated because the required findings for this permit would introduce subjectivity that is expressly preempted by the FCC ruling. In place of Administrative Design Review, all requests would be evaluated based on a set of objective criteria outlined in the policy resolution, and decisions would be based on a list of required findings that require confirmation of compliance with the criteria.

3. Application and Review Procedures Requirements– establishes the application submittal requirements and process for efficient review of applications including procedures for reviewing batched or grouped applications. While staff initially recommended procedures identifying the possibility of accepting a “batched” application of 10 similar facilities to be submitted at one time, this number has been reduced to allow review of 5 similar facilities to be submitted as part of one

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4

batched application. However, even with this change, the FCC ruling does not allow the local jurisdiction to set limits on precluding simultaneous filings of multiple batched applications.

4. Public Notice Process- establishes a public noticing process. While a public noticing process was not previously proposed, staff believes that such a noticing process would be a necessary form of disclosure to the community about impending, nearby installation and construction work. This noticing requirement is similar to the community outreach that is sometimes done for certain types of City improvement projects. The process requires a mailed public notice to all properties and record owners within 500 feet of the proposed location (500-foot radius measured laterally from the right-of-way). The notice would provide a 10-day noticing period for written public comment, which is intended to assist staff in its determination on whether the proposed facility would comply with all the applicable standards in the policy. It should be noted that this noticing process would not include a public hearing. Considering the shot clock deadlines, even factoring in a staff-level Zoning Administrator hearing with the processing steps would mean that the City would likely be unable to comply with these deadlines.

5. Appeals Process- requires appeals be directly referred to the City Council. A direct appeal to the City Council is necessary given the shot clock time limits imposed by the FCC. The policy language limits City Council appeals of individual permit applications to whether the application complies with the required findings for approval in Section 7(c) – design standards, location, support structure type, etc. Please note that the policy is drafted so that no appeals will be permitted to the extent that the appeal is based on the effects from RFR emissions that comply with all applicable FCC regulations. As discussed in the December 3, 2018 staff report, the recent FCC ruling made no changes in the 1996 Telecommunications Act related to a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate or enforce radio frequency (RFR) emission limits on small wireless facilities or any other wireless communication facility. Therefore, the City has no authority to approve or deny a small wireless facility application on the basis of health risks unless such facility exceeds the FCC standards for public exposure.

6. Most Preferred, Less Preferred and Least Preferred Locations- establishes a list of most preferred (commercial/industrial/public-quasi-public) versus least preferred locations (residential). The policy retains the proposed provision to limit installation of small wireless facilities in parks/open space and residential districts (least preferred locations) on or along major or minor arterial roads (as defined by General Plan 2020 Exhibit 22); The policy authorizes the City to deny any application in a residential zoning district, when the small wireless facility is not located along an arterial or minor arterial road, unless the applicant can show by clear and convincing evidence that a more-preferred location is not technically feasible.

The policy states preference for facilities to be installed on existing streetlights to enhance concealment opportunities. Wood utility poles are subject to physical limitations (wood is solid, and cabling cannot be routed through the pole) and additional CPUC safety regulations (minimum separation distances from the pole and from communications and electrified lines) that make blending and camouflaging more difficult.

The policy statement applies to small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and on private property as the FCC ruling applies to both locations.

7. Setback/buffer requirements- establishes a 500-foot buffer from residential districts. This policy authorizes the City to deny an application that does not meet this requirement. However, if an applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence in the written record that any other more preferred location is technically infeasible, the setback/buffer is waived.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5

8. Separation requirements – requires a 500-foot separation between poles for new installation. This number was increased from the 300 feet that previously recommended. If installed on existing utility poles or light standards, waive the separation requirement if the antenna and boxes are concealed in a canister or are flush-mounted on the pole.

9. Dimensional and stealth design requirements- establishes design requirements that are similar to what was previously required for antennas and recommendations for undergrounding of associated structures. However, the language now provides opportunities for pole mounting of associated equipment when it can be appropriately integrated into a shroud or pedestal at the base of the pole. The draft policy sets forth similar design standards for each element of the proposed facility and provides volumetric requirements for each piece of equipment that is more consistent with local preferences – maximum of 17 cubic feet for accessory equipment rather than the FCC definition of 28 cubic feet. Please note that it is staff’s intent to further assess the design standards and return to the City Council in the near future with additional or more specific standards.

10. Conditions of Approval- provides standard conditions of approval that automatically attach to any permit and govern the operation and maintenance standards for each small wireless facility. One standard condition requires the permittee to cooperate with all the City’s efforts to maintain compliance with the FCC’s RF exposure rules and guidelines.

11. Height limits- a height standard requiring a clearance of equipment installation of a minimum of 10 feet from grade and not to exceed 10 feet above the existing pole.

12. Signage- limits signage to only signage required by the FCC.

13. Shot-clock/processing deadlines- establishes review and action timelines consistent with the FCC ruling. The FCC ruling for small wireless facilities requires that an application action must be made within 60 days of application filing for co-locations and 90 days of application filing for new structures. Staff is concerned that compliance with the shot-clock deadlines will be challenging. While the application process has been crafted to incorporate a direct appeal of action to the City Council, the prescribed and required steps in the application review process (application review for completeness, referrals, report writing, notifications, public meeting scheduling, public hearing) has the potential to extend beyond these FCC deadlines. Considering the processing steps, staff cannot guarantee that the shot-clock deadlines will be met with every application.

14. Fees- As discussed above, the FCC ruling sets limits on the fees that can be charged on small wireless facility applications in the public right-of-way. An assessment of the City’s current fees relative to their application for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way is discussed under the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

With adoption of an urgency ordinance and associated policy resolution, the City will be prepared to process applications for small wireless facilities when the FCC ruling becomes effective.

Environmental Review Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines § 15378 and California Public Resources Code § 21065, the adoption of the urgency ordinance and policy resolution is not a “project” because their adoption is not an activity that has the potential for a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Alternatively, if the adoption does constitute a project under CEQA, it is one that qualifies for an Exemption from the provisions of CEQA Guidelines

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6

pursuant to Sections 15183(a) because it entails a project that can be found consistent with the General Plan policies and pursuant to 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemptions, which states that as a ‘general rule’ CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant, physical environmental effects. Regarding health hazards and review of individual small wireless facility applications, the City is not precluded from requiring CEQA review. However, the City cannot make RF-based decisions under CEQA to the extent that RFR emissions comply with the FCC’s RFR regulations.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Notice of this meeting was mailed to a list of stakeholders 15 days prior to the December 3, 2018 City Council meeting. In addition, while public notice for an urgency ordinance is not required, a 10-day notice of the December 17, 2018 City Council hearing on this matter was published in the Marin Independent Journal and notice was mailed to the list of stakeholders previously notified (see Attachment 5 for meeting notice).

FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed adoption of an urgency ordinance and resolution has no direct fiscal impact on the City of San Rafael. However, the fees that are charged (both non-recurring and recurring) for small wireless facility applications could have a fiscal impact on the City. Per the FCC ruling, the fees charged by the City for small wireless facilities must be fair and reasonable. As reported in the December 3 City Council report, the FCC conducted a survey of 20 local jurisdictions finding that the following fee levels comply with this “fair and reasonable” standard:

o $500.00 for non-recurring fees,1 including a single, up-front application for up to five small wireless facility sites, with an additional $100.00 for each additional small wireless facility site beyond the initial five sites. o $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole to support one or more small wireless facility. o $270.00 per year for all recurring fees2 including any right-of-way access fee (e.g., encroachment permit) or fee for attachment to a municipality-owned structure in the public right-of-way.

The FCC ruling states that, in limited circumstances, a state or local agency can charge fees higher than the above fees provided that: a) they are a reasonable approximation of the costs; b) the costs themselves are reasonable; and c) they are not discriminatory.

The “non-recurring” fees that are presented in the FCC survey (discussed above) are not enough to cover the staff costs for the Planning review process and the one-time, $246.00 construction-related Encroachment Permit (administered by Public Works). The current wireless communication fees charged by the City are based on a 2011 Cost of Services Study, which found that: a) the Administrative Design Permit fee of $1,167.00 represents 97% cost recovery (staff time to process and administer the application); b) the $398.00 Telecommunication Fee represents 100% cost recovery; and c) the more significant permits for new antennas/structures ($2,258.00/$4,693.00 for Environmental and Design Review Permit) cover approximately 80-85% of City staff time. The $246.00 fee for a construction-related Encroachment Permit (“non-recurring” fee) is also 100% cost recovery. However, as proposed, if the Planning process for small wireless facilities is limited to a Small Cell Permit (fee of $398.00 coupled with the $246.00 Encroachment Permit), the cost for service would not be recovered. Section 8(a)(16) of the policy resolution (Attachment 2) recommends that the applicant be subject to covering “cost reimbursement.”

1 A non-recurring fee is akin to the Planning application fees such as an Administrative Design Review Permit 2 A recurring fee would be akin to an annual fee charged for the encroachment into the public right-of-way

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7

The Planning Division currently administers a cost reimbursement (cost recovery) program for deposit- based Planning applications (including several of those applications referenced above). Therefore, it is recommended that this current cost reimbursement program be administered for all small wireless facility applications requiring: a) a $2,000 deposit; and b) a signed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to reimburse the City of reasonable cost of processing the application. Unused deposit amounts would be reimbursed to the applicant. This cost reimbursement program is also suitable in the event an independent contractor is hired by the City. To ensure that applications can be processed within the time limits established by the FCC, it may be necessary for the City to hire an independent consultant to complete this service.

OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter: 1. Adopt the attached an urgency ordinance and resolution. 2. Direct staff to return with more information. 3. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached urgency ordinance and resolution.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urgency Ordinance for small wireless facilities 2. Resolution (containing regulations, standards and permitting) 3. 23-point list of recommendations presented to the Town of Fairfax from “5G-Free Marin” 4. Public hearing notice 5. Community comments and correspondence received to date

ATTACHMENT 1

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36937(b), AMENDING TITLE 14 (“ZONING”) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 1. FINDINGS

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937(b) authorizes the adoption of an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael deems it necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b) to add regulations to the San Rafael Municipal Code to regulate the placement of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of- way, finding the urgency to do so based upon the following facts:

1. The global wireless telecommunications industry has developed and is starting to install “small wireless facilities” primarily in public rights-of-way. Small wireless facilities are designed to accommodate “5G” technology. Wireless telecommunications providers have made inquiries with the City of San Rafael and other California cities about installing small wireless facilities in San Rafael’s rights-of-way, and some other California cities are already receiving applications for such facilities.

2. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares invalid all state and local rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone service, and the Federal Communications Commission has adopted regulations for the implementation of that Act.

3. The City of San Rafael currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) Title 14 (“Zoning”), Section 14.16.360, which was last revised in 2014. Among other provisions, these regulations impose design, height, general location and other standards for installation of wireless facilities primarily on private property, establish ministerial and discretionary review processes, and require submittal of reports regarding radiofrequency emissions and alternative sites.

4. Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters.

5. Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways,

1-1

ATTACHMENT 1

and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner and may involve the imposition of fees.

6. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission adopted its “Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order” (hereafter, the “FCC Ruling”) expressly to “reduce regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireless infrastructure and to ensure that our nation remains the leader in advanced wireless services and wireless technology.” (FCC Ruling, ¶29.) The FCC Ruling is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and accumulation of small wireless facilities over a short period of time in order to enable deployment of technology that the FCC Ruling claims will enable increased competition in healthcare, Internet of Things applications, lifesaving car technologies, and creation of jobs.

7. Small wireless facilities are primarily installed within public rights-of-way and as such create significant and far-reaching local concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety, land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators, and protection and preservation of public property, all of which may negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City and the public health, safety and welfare thereof. Accordingly, regulating the installation of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way is necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community, as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible.

8. The FCC Ruling, which will go into effect on January 14, 2019, sets forth new limitations on state and local government regulation of small wireless facilities that are placed on existing or new utility poles and street light standards located in the public right-of-way. Specifically, the FCC Ruling: a) limits the level of local permitting and discretion; b) establishes new shorter “shot clock” rules (e.g., time limits and deadlines) for processing and action on local permits; and c) limits the fees that can be charged for the facilities.

9. The current regulations in SRMC Section 14.16.360 are primarily focused on wireless telecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and practical issues that arise in connection with deployment of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way pursuant to the new limitations established in the FCC Ruling.

10. Without the immediate implementation through an urgency ordinance of regulations specific to the siting of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way, the City Council will be unable to adopt and implement such regulations before the January 14, 2019 effective date of the FCC Ruling. The consequence will be that under the new “shot clock” rules, applications submitted at that time will need to be approved within either 60 or 90 days of the application being submitted and will not be subject to the City’s regulations of

1-2

ATTACHMENT 1

the right-of-way; small wireless facilities could therefore be approved that are inconsistent with the regulations being developed by the City as permitted by federal and state laws.

WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan policies; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines § 15378 and California Public Resources Code § 21065, the Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” because its adoption is not an activity that has the potential for a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and that, even if this ordinance qualified as a “project” subject to CEQA, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the physical environment; and

WHEREAS, for all the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds and declares that adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS.

Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, entitled “Zoning,” is hereby amended as follows:

1. Section 14.03.030 is hereby amended to add a new definition of “Small Wireless Facility”, to read in its entirety as follows (as shown below by strikethroughs for deletions and underline/italics for insertions):

14.03.030 - Definitions.

“Small Wireless Facility” means a small wireless facility as defined by the FCC and that meets the following requirements:

1. Meet one of the following mounting requirements:

a. are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section 1.1320(d), or

b. are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or

c. do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

1-3

ATTACHMENT 1

3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume

Antenna equipment, means equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.

2. Section 14.03.030 is hereby amended to amend the definition of “Wireless communication facilities” to read in its entirety as follows:

"Wireless communication facilities" means facilities regulated by the FCC that transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals for cellular technology, personal communication services, enhanced specialized mobile services, paging systems, and radio and television broadcast transmission facilities. Facilities include antennas, microwave dishes, parabolic antennas, and all other types of equipment (but does not include small wireless facility, which is defined separately under “Small Wireless Facility”) used in the transmission or reception of such signals; telecommunication towers or similar structures supporting said equipment; associated equipment cabinets and/or buildings; and all other accessory development. These facilities include amateur radio antenna structures that exceed thirty feet (30′) in height but do not include government-operated public safety networks.

3. Section 14.16.360(A) is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

14.16.360 - Wireless communication facilities.

A. Purpose. This section establishes standards to regulate the design and placement of towers, antennas, and other wireless communication transmission and/or reception facilities (hereinafter called wireless communication facilities) on public and private property, including facilities within the public right-of-way to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community, and to comply with applicable state and federal laws, including the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. This section does not apply to small wireless facilities as defined under Section 14.03.030, which are regulated by Section 14.16.361. To fulfill this its purpose, this section is intended to:

1. Establish review and approval requirements, application submittal requirements, and development standards to regulate the design and placement of wireless communication facilities so as to preserve the visual character of the city and to ensure public health and safety, consistent with federal law and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations.

2. Acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication services within the city.

3. Encourage the joint use of new and existing ground mounted facility monopole/tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single-use towers.

1-4

ATTACHMENT 1

4. Allow the community development director, or delegated staff, to make certain determinations under the provisions of this section.

4. Section 14.16.360(H)(1) is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

H. Design Requirements.

1. Co-Location. All new wireless communication facilities service providers shall co- locate with other existing and/or planned new wireless communication facilities whenever feasible. Service providers are encouraged to co-locate with other existing facilities such as water tanks, light standards and other utility structures where the co- location is found to minimize the overall visual impact of the new facility. Co-location of small wireless facilities on light standards/poles, traffic lights, or other structures located within the public right-of-way shall be subject to requirements of Section 14.16.361.

5. Section 14.16.360(N)(1) is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

N. Definitions.

1. Ground Mounted Facility" means a monopole, tower or any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed wireless communications facility antenna and their associated facilities. Wireless antenna facilities and equipment that are mounted onto an existing structure, including existing utility poles, on private property shall be considered building mounted co-located on an existing structure. Mounting of wireless facilities on light standards/poles, traffic lights, or utility poles within the public right-of-way shall be governed by Section 14.16.361.

6. New Section 14.16.361, entitled “Small Wireless Facilities”, is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows:

14.16.361 – Small wireless facilities.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title as provided herein, all small wireless facilities as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l), as may be amended or superseded, are subject to a permit as specified in the San Rafael City Council’s “Policies, Procedures, Standards and Limitations for Submittal and Review of Small Wireless Facilities Within the Public Right-Of-Way as Set Forth in the San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.361” (“Policy”), as adopted and amended from time to time by City Council resolution, and all small wireless facilities shall comply with such Policy. If the City Council Policy is repealed, an application for a small wireless facility shall be processed pursuant to Section 14.16.360.

DIVISION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), ‘general rule’ provision).

1-5

ATTACHMENT 1

DIVISION 4. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

DIVISION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE.

This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and shall become effective immediately upon adoption by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 36937(b). The City Clerk is directed to publish forthwith a copy of this Ordinance, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California.

______GARY O. PHILLIPS, Mayor

ATTEST:

______LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

I, LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, certify that the foregoing Ordinance was passed by the City Council of the City of San Rafael, California, by a vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the members thereof, at a regular meeting held on Monday, the 17th day of December 2018, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

______LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

1-6

ATTACHMENT 2

RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SET FORTH IN THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.16.361

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order pertaining to small wireless facilities setting forth limitations on state and local government regulation of small wireless facilities that are placed on utility poles and street light standards located in the public right-of-way (the “FCC ruling”); and

WHEREAS, the FCC ruling: a) limits the level of local permitting and discretion; b) establishes “shot clock” rules (e.g., time limits and deadlines) for processing and action on local permits; and c) limits the fees that can be charged for the facilities; and

WHEREAS, the FCC ruling further established that any aesthetic regulations and fees required for processing of small wireless facilities be published in advance; and

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, the San Rafael Municipal City Council received a presentation on the FCC ruling and considered public testimony related to small wireless facility policy and directed staff to prepare an urgency ordinance to amend San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (the “Zoning Ordinance”) and a policy resolution to include provisions defining and regulating the placement of small wireless facilities in the City; and

WHEREAS, at the December 3, 2018, City Council meeting the City Council received public testimony with requests from community members that small wireless facilities regulations include additional provisions that would prohibit small wireless facilities in the residential districts; and

WHEREAS, the City Council concluded that some of the recommendations presented could be beneficial in addressing aesthetic impacts; and

WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare an Urgency ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance related to small wireless facilities with changes to the Draft Resolution that incorporates additional design criteria;

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. ____ amending the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions to define and regulate the placement of small wireless facilities in the City. These amendments refer to a policy resolution for application/review procedures and review criteria for evaluating the placement of small wireless facilities; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines § 15378 and California Public Resources Code § 21065, the Policy is not a “project” because

2-1

ATTACHMENT 2 its adoption is not an activity that has the potential for a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, even if the Policy qualified as a “project” subject to CEQA, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the physical environment. The Policy merely carries out the delegation of authority under the San Rafael Municipal Code to regulate the deployment of small wireless facilities and does not directly or indirectly authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds the Policy will, to the extent permitted by federal and California law, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and also balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced, wireless services with the City’s local values, which include without limitation the aesthetic character of the City, its neighborhoods and community;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the following Policies, Procedures, Standards and Limitations for submittal and review of small wireless facilities:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND INTENT

(a) The City of San Rafael intends this Policy to establish reasonable, uniform and comprehensive standards and procedures for small wireless facilities deployment, construction, installation, collocation, modification, operation, relocation and removal within the City’s territorial boundaries, consistent with and to the extent permitted under federal and California state law. The standards and procedures contained in this Policy are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced wireless services with the City’s local values, which include without limitation the aesthetic character of the City, its neighborhoods and community. This Policy is also intended to reflect and promote the community interest by (1) ensuring that the balance between public and private interest is maintained; (2) protecting the City’s visual character from potential adverse impacts or visual blight created or exacerbated by small wireless facilities and related communications infrastructure; (3) protecting and preserving the City’s environmental resources; and (4) promoting access to high-quality, advanced wireless services for the City’s residents, businesses and visitors.

(b) This Policy is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit any personal wireless service provider’s ability to provide personal wireless services; (2) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requirements for rights-of-way management; (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (4) deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such wireless facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions; (5) prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or California state law; (6) impose any unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory or anticompetitive fees that exceed the reasonable cost to provide the services for which the fee is charged; or (7) otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or California law.

2-2

ATTACHMENT 2

SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS

In addition to the definitions contained in San Rafael Municipal Code 14.03.030, the following definitions shall also provide clarity:

(a) “antenna” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(b), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as an apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. For purposes of this definition, the term antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile station, or device authorized under part 15 of Title 47.

(b) “arterial street” means a road designated as an arterial or minor arterial street under General Plan 2020 Exhibit 22.

(c) “collocation” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(g), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as (1) mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure; and/or (2) modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure.

(d) “concealed” or “concealment” means camouflaging techniques that meet the design standards in Section 10 and integrate the transmission equipment into the surrounding natural and/or built environment such that the average, untrained observer cannot directly view the equipment but would likely recognize the existence of the wireless facility or concealment technique. Camouflaging concealment techniques include, but are not limited to: (1) facade or rooftop mounted pop-out screen boxes; (2) antennas mounted within a radome above a streetlight; (3) equipment cabinets in the public rights-of-way painted or wrapped to match the background; and (4) an isolated or standalone faux-tree.

(d) “decorative pole” means any pole that includes decorative or ornamental features, design elements and/or materials intended to enhance the appearance of the pole or the public right-of- way in which the pole is located.

(e) “Director” means the Community Development Director for the City of San Rafael or the Director’s designee.

(f) “FCC Shot Clock” means the presumptively reasonable time frame within which the City must act on a wireless application, as defined by the FCC and as may be amended from time to time.

(g) “personal wireless services” means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange access services. As an illustration and not a limitation, personal wireless services are typically services that are offered directly to the public or a class of people for a fee. At the adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, these services generally meant cellular, specialized mobile radio (SMR) and broadband personal communications services (PCS).

(h) “personal wireless service facilities” means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as facilities that provide personal wireless services. As an illustration and not a limitation, personal wireless service facilities are the

2-3

ATTACHMENT 2

physical infrastructure – antennas, support structures, radios, wires and base station equipment – that are used to provide personal wireless services. “

(i) “RF” means radio frequency or electromagnetic waves generally between 30 kHz and 300 GHz in the electromagnetic spectrum range.

(j) “Section 6409” means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), as may be amended.

(k) “structure” for this policy, means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(m), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services).

SECTION 3 APPLICABILITY

(a) Applicable Wireless Facilities. Except as expressly provided otherwise in this Policy, the provisions in this Policy shall be applicable to all existing small wireless facilities and all applications and requests for authorization to construct, install, attach, operate, collocate, modify, reconstruct, relocate or otherwise deploy small wireless facilities within the City’s jurisdictional and territorial boundaries within the public rights-of-way or on private property.

(b) Special Provisions for Eligible Facilities Requests. Notwithstanding Section 3(a), all requests for approval to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted pursuant to Section 6409 will be reviewed consistent with the standards required by law.

SECTION 4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

(a) Small Cell Permit. A “small cell permit,” subject to the Director’s prior review and approval, is required for any small wireless facility proposed on an existing, new or replacement support structure.

(b) Other Permits and Approvals. In addition to the above a small cell permits, the applicant must obtain all other permits and regulatory approvals as may be required by any other federal, state or local government agencies, which includes without limitation any ministerial permits and/or approvals issued by other City departments or divisions. All applications for ministerial permits submitted in connection with a proposed small wireless facility must contain a valid permit for the proposed facility. Any application submitted without such small cell permit will be denied without prejudice. Furthermore, any permit or approval granted under this Policy shall remain subject to all lawful conditions and/or legal requirements associated with such other permits or approvals.

SECTION 5 SMALL CELL PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) Small Cell Permit Application Contents. All applications for a small cell permit must include all the information and materials required in this subsection (a).

(1) Application Form. The applicant shall submit a complete, duly executed small cell permit application on the then-current form prepared by the Director or his/her designee.

2-4

ATTACHMENT 2

(2) Application Fee. The applicant shall submit the applicable small cell permit application fee established by City Council resolution. Batched applications must include the applicable small cell permit application fee for each small wireless facility in the batch. If no small cell permit application fee has been established, then the applicant must submit a signed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to reimburse the City for its reasonable costs incurred in connection with the application.

(3) Construction Drawings. The applicant shall submit true and correct construction drawings, prepared, signed and stamped by a California licensed or registered engineer, that depict all the existing and proposed improvements, equipment and conditions related to the proposed project, which includes without limitation any and all poles, posts, pedestals, traffic signals, towers, streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveways, curbs, gutters, drains, handholes, manholes, fire hydrants, equipment cabinets, antennas, cables, trees and other landscape features. The construction drawings must: (i) contain cut sheets that contain the technical specifications for all existing and proposed antennas and accessory equipment, which includes without limitation the manufacturer, model number and physical dimensions; (ii) identify all structures within 250 feet from the proposed project site and call out such structures’ overall height above ground level; (iii) depict the applicant’s plan for electric and data backhaul utilities, which shall include the locations for all conduits, cables, wires, handholes, junctions, transformers, meters, disconnect switches, and points of connection; and (iv) demonstrate that proposed project will be in full compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, regulations or other rules, which includes without limitation all building codes, electric codes, local street standards and specifications, and public utility regulations and orders.

(4) Site Survey. For any small wireless facility proposed to be located within the public rights- of-way, the applicant shall submit a survey prepared, signed and stamped by a California licensed or registered engineer. The survey must identify and depict all existing boundaries, encroachments and other structures within 250 feet from the proposed project site, which includes without limitation all: (i) traffic lanes; (ii) all private properties and property lines; (iii) above and below-grade utilities and related structures and encroachments; (iv) fire hydrants, roadside call boxes and other public safety infrastructure; (v) streetlights, decorative poles, traffic signals and permanent signage; (vi) sidewalks, driveways, parkways, curbs, gutters and storm drains; (vii) benches, trash cans, mailboxes, kiosks and other street furniture; and (viii) existing trees, planters and other landscaping features.

(5) Photo Simulations. The applicant shall submit site photographs and photo simulations that show the existing location and proposed small wireless facility in context from at least three vantage points within the public streets or other publicly accessible spaces, together with a vicinity map that shows the proposed site location and the photo location for each vantage point.

(6) Project Narrative and Justification. The applicant shall submit a written statement that explains in plain factual detail whether and why the proposed wireless facility qualifies as a “small wireless facility” as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l). A complete written narrative analysis will state the applicable standard and all the facts that allow the City to conclude the standard has been met—bare conclusions not factually supported do not constitute a complete written analysis. As part of the written statement the applicant must also include (i) whether and why the proposed support is a structure as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(m); and (ii) whether and why the proposed wireless facility meets

2-5

ATTACHMENT 2

each required finding for a small cell permit as provided in Section 7(c).

(7) RF Compliance Report. The applicant shall submit an RF exposure compliance report that certifies that the proposed small wireless facility, as well as any collocated wireless facilities, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. The RF report must be prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City. The RF report must include the actual frequency and power levels (in watts ERP) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site and exhibits that show the location and orientation of all transmitting antennas and the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general population limit (as that term is defined by the FCC) and also the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the controlled/occupational limit (as that term is defined by the FCC). Each such boundary shall be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site.

(8) Public Notices. The applicant shall submit a mailing list and envelopes, stamped and addressed, for all properties and record owners of properties entitled to receive notice under Section 7(a). Insufficient postage and/or illegible addressing shall be a basis to deem the application incomplete.

(9) Regulatory Authorization. The applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s regulatory status under federal and California law to provide the services and construct the small wireless facility proposed in the application.

(10) Site Agreement. For any small wireless facility proposed to be installed on any structure owned or controlled by the City and located within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall submit a partially-executed site agreement on a form prepared by the City that states the terms and conditions for such non-exclusive use by the applicant. No changes shall be permitted to the City’s form site agreement except as may be indicated on the form itself. Any unpermitted changes to the City’s form site agreement shall be deemed a basis to deem the application incomplete.

(11) Title Report and Property Owner’s Authorization. For any small wireless facility proposed to be installed on any private property not owned or controlled by the City, the applicant must submit: (i) a title report issued within 30 days from the date the applicant filed the application; and (ii) if the applicant is not the property owner, a written authorization signed by the property owner identified in the title report that authorizes the applicant to submit and accept a small cell permit in connection with the subject property.

(12) Acoustic Analysis. The applicant shall submit an acoustic analysis prepared and certified by an engineer for the proposed small wireless facility and all associated equipment including all environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators and permanent backup power generators demonstrating compliance with the City’s noise ordinance (SRMC 8.13). The acoustic analysis must also include an analysis of the manufacturers’ specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines. In lieu of an acoustic analysis, the applicant may submit evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted from all the proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits.

(b) Additional Requirements. The City Council authorizes the Director to develop, publish and from

2-6

ATTACHMENT 2

time to time update or amend permit application requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the Director finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing any application governed under this Policy. All such requirements and materials must be in written form and publicly stated to provide all interested parties with prior notice.

SECTION 6 SMALL CELL PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW

(a) Requirements for a Duly Filed Application. Any application for a small cell permit will not be considered duly filed unless submitted in accordance with the requirements in this subsection (a).

(1) Submittal Appointment. All applications must be submitted to the City at a pre-scheduled appointment with the Director. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment, or up to five individual applications per appointment for batched applications subject to subsection (d). Applicants may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. The Director shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment within five working days after the Director receives a written request. Any application received without an appointment, whether delivered in-person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed.

(2) Pre-Submittal Conferences. The City strongly encourages, but does not require, applicants to schedule and attend a pre-submittal conference with the Director for all proposed projects that involve more than five (5) small wireless facilities. This voluntary pre-submittal conference does not cause the FCC Shot Clock to begin and is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process; any latent issues in connection with the proposed project, including compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential concealment issues or concerns (if applicable); coordination with other City departments responsible for application review; and application completeness issues. To mitigate unnecessary delays due to application incompleteness, applicants are encouraged (but not required) to bring any draft applications or other materials so that City staff may provide informal feedback and guidance about whether such applications or other materials may be incomplete or unacceptable. The Director shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment within five working days after receiving a written request and any applicable fee or deposit to reimburse the City for its reasonable costs to provide the services rendered in the pre-submittal conference.

(b) Application Completeness Review. Within 30 calendar days after the Director receives a duly filed small cell permit application, the Director shall review the application for completeness and, if any application does not contain all the materials required in Section 5(a) or any other publicly stated requirements, send a written notice to the applicant that identifies the missing or incomplete requirements.

(c) Applications Deemed Withdrawn. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, and to mitigate unreasonable delays or barriers to entry caused by chronically incomplete applications, any application governed under this Policy will be automatically deemed withdrawn by the applicant when the applicant fails to tender a substantive response to the Director within 60 calendar days after the Director deems the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant. As used in this subsection (c), a “substantive response” must include the materials identified as incomplete in

2-7

ATTACHMENT 2

the Director’s notice.

(d) Batched Applications. Applicants may submit up to five individual applications for a small cell permit in a batch; provided, however, that small wireless facilities in a batch must be proposed with substantially the same equipment in the same configuration on the same support structure type. Each application in a batch must meet all the requirements for a complete application, which includes without limitation the application fee for each application in the batch. If any application in a batch is incomplete, the entire batch shall be deemed incomplete. If any application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn from a batch, the entire batch shall be deemed withdrawn. If any application in a batch fails to meet the required findings for approval, the entire batch shall be denied.

(e) Additional Procedures. The City Council authorizes the Director to establish other reasonable rules and regulations for duly filed applications, which may include without limitation regular hours for appointments with applicants, as the Director deems necessary or appropriate to organize, document and manage the application intake process. All such rules and regulations must be in written form and publicly stated to provide all interested parties with prior notice.

SECTION 7 APPROVALS AND DENIALS; NOTICES

(a) Public Notice. Prior to any approval, conditional approval or denial, public notice shall be mailed to all properties and record owners and occupants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The notice must contain: (1) a general project description; (2) the applicant’s identification and contact information as provided on the application submitted to the City; (3) contact information for the Project Planner; (4) a statement that the Director will act on the application without a public hearing, but will for a minimum of ten (10) days from the date of the notice accept written public comments that evaluate the application for compliance with the standards in this Policy; and (5) a statement that the FCC requires the City to act on small wireless facility applications, which includes any administrative appeals, in 60 days for attachments to existing structures and 90 days for new structures, unless the applicant voluntarily agrees to toll the timeframe for review.

(b) Administrative Review. Not less than 10 calendar days after the public notice required in subsection (a), the Director shall approve, conditionally approve or deny a complete and duly filed small cell permit application without a public hearing.

(c) Required Findings. The Director may approve or conditionally approve a complete and duly filed application for a small cell permit when the Director finds:

(1) the proposed project meets the definition for a “small wireless facility” as defined by the FCC;

(2) the proposed project would be in the most preferred location provided in Section 9(b) or the applicant has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence in the written record that any more-preferred location(s) within 500 feet would be technically infeasible;

(3) the proposed project would not be located on a prohibited support structure identified in this Policy;

(4) the proposed project would be on the most preferred support structure provided in Section 9(c) or 9(d) or the applicant has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence in the

2-8

ATTACHMENT 2

written record that any more-preferred support structure(s) within 500 feet would be technically infeasible;

(5) the proposed project complies with all applicable design standards in this Policy;

(6) the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable health and safety regulations, which include without limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act and all FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions; and

(7) all public notices required for the application have been given.

(d) Conditional Approvals; Denials without Prejudice. Subject to any applicable federal or California laws, nothing in this Policy is intended to limit the Director’s ability to conditionally approve or deny without prejudice any small cell permit application as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with this Policy.

(e) Decision Notices. Within five calendar days after the Director acts on a small cell permit application or before the FCC Shot Clock expires (whichever occurs first), the Director shall notify the applicant of such decision by written notice. If the Director denies the application (with or without prejudice), the written notice must contain the reasons for the decision.

(f) Appeals. Any decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny a small wireless facility shall be appealable directly to the City Council. Appeals shall be filed within 5 working days of a decision having been rendered. Any such appeal shall include a letter identifying the name, address and contact information for the appellant and provides the reasons for the appeal based on the alleged noncompliance with the required findings in Section 7(c). the reasons for appeal. Any such appeal shall be subject to the appeal fees established in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. Appeals from an approval will not be permitted to the extent that the appeal is based on environmental effects from RF emissions that comply with all applicable FCC regulations.

SECTION 8 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

(a) General Conditions. In addition to all other conditions that may be adopted by the Director for a small cell permit, all such permits issued under this Policy shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this subsection (a).

(1) Permit Term. This small cell permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its issuance. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to this small wireless facility, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed-granted or deemed- approved under federal or state law, will not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law. To the extent that this small cell permit is issued in connection with any structure owned or controlled by the City and located in the public rights-of-way, this small cell permit shall be coterminous with the cancellation, termination or expiration of the agreement between the applicant and the City for access to the subject City structure.

(2) Permit Renewal. Not more than one year before this small cell permit expires, the permittee may apply for permit renewal. The permittee must demonstrate that the subject

2-9

ATTACHMENT 2

small wireless facility complies with all the conditions of approval associated with this small cell permit and all applicable provisions in the Municipal Code and this Policy that exist at the time the decision to renew or not renew the permit is rendered. The Director may modify or amend the conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with this Policy. Upon renewal, this small cell permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its issuance.

(3) Post-Installation Certification. Within 60 calendar days after the permittee commences full, unattended operations of a small wireless facility approved or deemed-approved, the permittee shall provide the Director with documentation reasonably acceptable to the Director that the small wireless facility has been installed and/or constructed in strict compliance with the approved construction drawings and photo simulations. Such documentation shall include without limitation as-built drawings, GIS data and site photographs.

(4) Build-Out Period. This small cell permit will automatically expire six (6) months from the approval date (the “build-out period”) unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved small wireless facility, which includes without limitation any permits or approvals required by the any federal, state or local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the small wireless facility or its use. If this build-out period or the construction permit expires, the permit automatically terminates and the City will not extend the build-out period or the permit, but the permittee may resubmit a complete application, including all application fees, for the same or substantially similar project

(5) Site Maintenance. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved construction drawings and all conditions in this small cell permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred.

(6) Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the small wireless facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this small cell permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. No failure or omission by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the San Rafael Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the San Rafael Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation.

(7) Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all unreasonable, undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby

2-10

ATTACHMENT 2

properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities on or about the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction work hours authorized by the San Rafael Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City or other state or federal government agency or official with authority to declare a state of emergency within the City. The Director may issue a stop work order for any activities that violates this condition in whole or in part.

(8) Inspections; Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff, agents, contractors or other designees may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, the City’s officers, officials, staff, agents, contractors or other designees may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee, if present, may observe the City’s officers, officials, staff or other designees while any such inspection or emergency access occurs.

(9) Permittee’s Contact Information. Within 10 days from the final approval of this small cell permit, the permittee shall furnish the Director with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the small wireless facility, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and promptly provide the Director with updated contact information if either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes.

(10) Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the property owner (if not on City-owned infrastructure) upon which the small wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, City Council and the City’s boards, commissions, agents, officers, officials, employees and volunteers (collectively, the “indemnitees”) from any and all (1) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs and other actions or proceedings (“claims”) brought against the indemnitees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of this small cell permit, and (2) other claims of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee’s or its agents’, directors’, officers’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, licensees’ or customers’ acts or omissions in connection with this small cell permit or the small wireless facility. In the event the City becomes aware of any claims, the City will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner (if applicable) and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and the property owner and/or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. Within ten calendar days of the service of a claim, the permittee shall execute a letter of agreement with the City, acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney, which memorializes the above obligations.

2-11

ATTACHMENT 2

The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee’s indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that motivates the City to approve this small cell permit, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration, revocation or other termination of this small cell permit.

(11) Performance Bond. Before the City issues any permits required to commence construction in connection with this small cell permit, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the Director in an amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost to remove the improvements and restore all affected areas based on a written estimate from a qualified contractor with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, which includes without limitation all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, mounts, brackets, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, footings and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed in connection with the small wireless facility, plus the cost to completely restore any areas affected by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. In establishing or adjusting the bond amount required under this condition, and in accordance with California Government Code § 65964(a), the Director shall take into consideration any information provided by the permittee regarding the cost to remove the small wireless facility to a standard compliant with applicable laws. The performance bond shall expressly survive the expiration, revocation or other termination of this small cell permit to the extent required to completely remove the equipment and improvements, restore the affected areas and perform all other obligations in accordance with this condition.

(12) Permit Revocation. Any permit granted under this Policy may be revoked in accordance with the provisions and procedures in this condition. The Director may initiate revocation proceedings when the Director has information that the facility may not be in compliance with all applicable laws, which includes without limitation, any permit in connection with the facility and any associated conditions with such permit(s). Before the Director may conduct a public hearing to revoke any permit granted under this Policy, the Director must issue a written notice to the permittee that specifies (i) the facility; (ii) the violation(s) to be corrected; (iii) the timeframe in which the permittee must correct such violation(s); and (iv) that, in addition to all other rights and remedies the City may pursue, the City may initiate revocation proceedings for failure to correct such violation(s). A permit granted under this Policy may be revoked only by the City Council after a duly notice public hearing. The City Council may revoke a permit when it finds substantial evidence in the written record to show that the facility is not in compliance with any applicable laws, which includes without limitation, any permit in connection with the facility and any associated conditions with such permit(s). Any decision by the City Council to revoke or not revoke a permit shall be final and not subject to any further appeals. Within five business days after the City Council adopts a resolution to revoke a permit, the Director shall provide the permittee with a written notice that specifies the revocation and the reasons for such revocation.

(13) Record Retention. Throughout the permit term, the permittee must maintain a complete and accurate copy of the written administrative record, which includes without limitation the small cell permit application, small cell permit, RF report, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval, any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval and any records, memoranda, documents, papers and other correspondence entered into the public record

2-12

ATTACHMENT 2

in connection with the small cell permit (collectively, “records”). If the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved by inspecting the missing records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee shall protect all records from damage from fires, floods and other hazards that may cause deterioration. The permittee may keep records in an electronic format; provided, however, that hard copies or electronic records kept in the City’s regular files will control over any conflicts between such City-controlled copies or records and the permittee’s electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. The requirements in this condition shall not be construed to create any obligation to create or prepare any records not otherwise required to be created or prepared by other applicable laws. Compliance with the requirements in this condition shall not excuse the permittee from any other similar record-retention obligations under applicable law.

(14) Abandoned Wireless Facilities. The small wireless facility authorized under this small cell permit shall be deemed abandoned if not operated for any continuous six-month period. Within 90 days after a small wireless facility is abandoned or deemed abandoned, the permittee and/or property owner shall completely remove the small wireless facility and all related improvements and shall restore all affected areas to a condition compliant with all applicable laws, which includes without limitation the San Rafael Municipal Code. In the event that neither the permittee nor the property owner complies with the removal and restoration obligations under this condition within said 90-day period, the City shall have the right (but not the obligation) to perform such removal and restoration with or without notice, and the permittee and property owner shall be jointly and severally liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with such removal and/or restoration activities.

(15) Landscaping. The permittee shall replace any landscape features damaged or displaced by the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or other work performed by the permittee or at the permittee’s direction on or about the site. If any trees are damaged or displaced, the permittee shall hire and pay for a licensed arborist to select, plant and maintain replacement landscaping in an appropriate location for the species. Only International Society of Arboriculture certified workers under the supervision of a licensed arborist shall be used to install the replacement tree(s). Any replacement tree must be substantially the same size as the damaged tree and consistent with the City’s list of pre- approved street trees. The permittee shall, at all times, be responsible to maintain any replacement landscape features.

(16) Cost Reimbursement. The permittee acknowledges and agrees that (i) the permittee’s request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility will cause the City to incur costs and expenses; (ii) the permittee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs incurred in connection with the permit, which includes without limitation costs related to application review, permit issuance, site inspection and any other costs reasonably related to or caused by the request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility; (iii) any application fees required for the application may not cover all such reimbursable costs and that the permittee shall have the obligation to reimburse City for all such costs 10 days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs; and (iv) the City shall have the right to withhold any permits or other approvals in connection with the wireless facility until and unless any outstanding costs have been reimbursed to the City by the permittee.

2-13

ATTACHMENT 2

(17) Cooperation with RF Compliance Evaluations. At all times relevant to this permit, the permittee and the property owner shall reasonably cooperate with efforts by the City to evaluate whether the wireless facility complies with all applicable FCC rules and regulations for human exposure to RF emissions. Such cooperation shall be at no cost to the City and may include, but is not limited to: (1) furnishing the City with a written affidavit signed by an RF engineer certifying the wireless facility’s compliance with applicable FCC rules and regulations; (2) providing technical data such as the frequencies in use, power output levels and antenna specifications, reasonably necessary to evaluate compliance with maximum permissible exposure levels set by the FCC; (3) allowing the City or its designee to have supervised access to the areas near the wireless facility for inspections and field measurements; and (4) promptly responding to all requests by the City or its designee for information and/or cooperation with respect to any of the foregoing. The City may conduct random tests to ensure compliance with the FCC’s rules and regulations. In the event that the City determines that permittee is not in compliance with any legal requirements or conditions, the permittee shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the investigation, enforcement and/or remediation of such noncompliance.

(b) Conditions for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. In addition to all conditions in subsection (a), all small cell permits for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of- way issued under this Policy shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this subsection (b).

(1) Future Undergrounding Programs. If other public utilities or communications providers in the public rights-of-way underground their facilities in the segment of the public rights-of- way where the permittee’s small wireless facility is located, the permittee must underground its equipment except the antennas, any electric meter and any other equipment that must be placed above ground to function. Accessory equipment such as radios and computers that require an environmentally controlled underground vault to function are not exempt from this condition and shall be undergrounded. Small wireless facilities installed on wood utility poles that will be removed pursuant to the undergrounding program may be reinstalled on a streetlight that complies with the City’s standards and specifications. Such undergrounding shall occur at the permittee’s sole cost and expense except as may be reimbursed through tariffs approved by the CPUC for undergrounding costs.

(2) Electric Meter Upgrades. If the commercial electric utility provider adopts or changes its rules obviating the need for a separate or ground-mounted electric meter and enclosure, the permittee on its own initiative and at its sole cost and expense shall remove the separate or ground-mounted electric meter and enclosure. Prior to removing the electric meter, the permittee shall apply for any encroachment and/or other ministerial permit(s) required to perform the removal. Upon removal, the permittee shall restore the affected area to its original condition that existed prior to installation of the equipment.

(3) Rearrangement and Relocation. The permittee acknowledges that the City, in its sole discretion and at any time, may: (1) change any street grade, width or location; (2) add, remove or otherwise change any improvements in, on, under or along any street owned by the City or any other public agency, which includes without limitation any sewers, storm drains, conduits, pipes, vaults, boxes, cabinets, poles and utility systems for gas, water, electric or telecommunications; and/or (3) perform any other work deemed necessary, useful or desirable by the City (collectively, “City work”). The City reserves the rights to do any and all City work without any admission on its part that the City would not have such

2-14

ATTACHMENT 2

rights without the express reservation in this small cell permit. If the Public Works Director determines that any City work will require the permittee’s small wireless facility located in the public rights-of-way to be rearranged and/or relocated, the permittee shall, at its sole cost and expense, do or cause to be done all things necessary to accomplish such rearrangement and/or relocation. If the permittee fails or refuses to either permanently or temporarily rearrange and/or relocate the permittee’s small wireless facility within a reasonable time after the Public Works Director’s notice, the City may (but will not be obligated to) cause the rearrangement or relocation to be performed at the permittee’s sole cost and expense. The City may exercise its rights to rearrange or relocate the permittee’s small wireless facility without prior notice to permittee when the Public Works Director determines that the City work is immediately necessary to protect public health or safety. The permittee shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses in connection with such work within ten (10) days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs.

SECTION 9 LOCATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) Preface to Location Requirements. This subsection (a) provides guidance as to how to interpret and apply the location requirements in this Section 9. To better assist applicants and decisionmakers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, subsections (b), (c) and (d) set out listed preferences for locations and support structures to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in ordered hierarchies. Applications that involve least-preferred locations or structures may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates that either: 1) no more preferred locations or structures exist within 500 feet from the proposed site; or 2) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible as supported by clear and convincing evidence in the written record. Subsection (e) identifies “prohibited” support structures on which the City shall not approve any small cell permit application for any competitor or potential competitor.

(b) Location Preferences. The City prefers small wireless facilities to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:

(1) Most Preferred Locations.

(A) City-owned parcels in any zoning district; (B) any parcel or public right-of-way location in Industrial Zoning Districts (I, LI/O, CCI/O & LMU); (C) any parcel or public right-of-way location in Commercial Zoning Districts (GC, NC, R/O, C/O & FBWC); (D) any parcel or public right-of-way location in Marine Zoning District (M); and (E) any parcel or public right-of-way location in Public/Quasi Public District (P/QP);

(2) Less Preferred Locations.

(A) any parcel or public right-of-way location in Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Districts; (B) any public right-of-way location in Residential Zoning Districts (R, DR, MR, HR) on or along roads designated as arterial or minor arterial roads (see Exhibit A of this resolution);

(3) Least Preferred Locations.

2-15

ATTACHMENT 2

(A) any public right-of-way location in Residential Zoning Districts (R, DR, MR, HR) on or along roads not designated as arterial or minor arterial roads (see Exhibit A of this resolution); (B) any parcel located in Residential Zoning Districts (R, DR, MR, HR).

For purposes of these location preferences, the applicant’s proposed location in the public right- of-way shall be classified by the same zoning district that applies to the nearest adjacent parcel. Planned Development Zoning District shall follow the closest zoning district from lists above, based on the approved uses.

(c) Support Structures in the Public Rights-of-Way. The City prefers small wireless facilities to be installed on support structures in the public rights-of-way, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:

(1) existing or replacement streetlight poles; (2) existing or replacement wood utility poles; (3) new, non-replacement streetlight poles; (4) new, non-replacement poles for small wireless facilities.

(e) Support Structures Outside the Public Rights-of-Way. The City prefers small wireless facilities to be installed on support structures outside the public rights-of-way, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:

(1) existing buildings or other non-tower structures previously approved for use as a support structure for personal wireless service facilities; (2) other existing buildings or non-tower structures; (3) existing or replacement poles or towers; (4) new, non-replacement towers for small wireless facilities.

(f) Prohibited Support Structures. The City prohibits small wireless facilities to be installed on the following support structures, whether located in the public rights-of-way or not:

(1) decorative poles; (2) traffic signals, signs, poles, cabinets and related devices; (3) any utility pole scheduled for removal or relocation within 12 months from the time the Director acts on the small cell permit application; (4) new, non-replacement wood poles.

SECTION 10 DESIGN STANDARDS

(a) General Standards.

(1) Noise. Small wireless facilities and all accessory equipment and transmission equipment must comply with all applicable noise control standards and regulations in San Rafael Municipal Code Articles 8.13, and shall not exceed, either on an individual or cumulative basis, the noise limit in the applicable district.

(2) Lights. Small wireless facilities shall not include any lights that would be visible from publicly accessible areas, except as may be required under Federal Aviation

2-16

ATTACHMENT 2

Administration, FCC, other applicable regulations for health and safety. All equipment with lights (such as indicator or status lights) must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigate illumination impacts visible from publicly accessible areas. The provisions in this subsection shall not be interpreted or applied to prohibit installations on streetlights or luminaires installed on new or replacement poles as may be required under this Policy.

(3) Landscape Features. Small wireless facilities shall not displace any existing landscape features unless: (A) such displaced landscaping is replaced with native and/or drought- resistant plants, trees or other landscape features approved by the Director and (B) the applicant submits and adheres to a landscape maintenance plan. The landscape plan must include existing vegetation, and vegetation proposed to be removed or trimmed, and the landscape plan must identify proposed landscaping by species type, size and location. Landscape maintenance must be performed in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code 14.25.050.G.

(4) Site Security Measures. Small wireless facilities may incorporate reasonable and appropriate site security measures, such as locks and anti-climbing devices, to prevent unauthorized access, theft or vandalism. The Director shall not approve any barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences or any similarly dangerous security measures. All exterior surfaces on small wireless facilities shall be constructed from or coated with graffiti-resistant materials.

(5) Signage; Advertisements. All small wireless facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the site owner/operator, the owner/operator’s site name or identification number and a toll-free number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. Small wireless facilities may not bear any other signage or advertisements unless expressly approved by the City, required by law or recommended under FCC, OSHA or other United States governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions regulations.

(6) Compliance with Health and Safety Regulations. All small wireless facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in compliance with all generally applicable health and safety regulations, which includes without limitation all applicable regulations for human exposure to RF emissions, the Americans with Disabilities Act, California Building Standards Code and the San Rafael Municipal Code.

(b) Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.

(1) Overall Height. Small wireless facilities may not exceed either (A) the minimum separation from electrical lines required by applicable safety regulations (such as CPUC General Order 95), plus four feet or (B) four feet above the existing support structure. However, at no point shall an existing support structure be increased by more than 10 feet above existing height.

(2) Antennas.

(A) Concealment. All antennas and associated mounting equipment, hardware, cables or other connecters must be completely concealed within an opaque antenna shroud or radome. The antenna shroud or radome must be graffiti-resistant and painted a flat, non-reflective color to match the underlying support structure.

(B) Antenna Volume. Each individual antenna may not exceed three cubic feet in

2-17

ATTACHMENT 2

volume and all antennas may not exceed six cubic feet in volume.

(3) Accessory Equipment.

(A) Installation Preferences. All non-antenna accessory equipment shall be installed in accordance with the following preferences, ordered from most preferred to least preferred: (i) underground in any area in which the existing utilities are primarily located underground; (ii) on the pole or support structure; or (iii) integrated into the base of the pole or support structure. Applications that involve lesser-preferred installation locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates that no more preferred installation location would be technically infeasible as supported by clear and convincing evidence in the written record.

(B) Undergrounded Accessory Equipment. All undergrounded accessory equipment must be installed in an environmentally controlled vault that is load-rated to meet the City’s standards and specifications. Underground vaults located beneath a sidewalk must be constructed with a slip-resistant cover. Vents for airflow shall be flush-to-grade when placed within the sidewalk and may not exceed two feet above grade when placed off the sidewalk. Applicants shall not be permitted to install an underground vault in a location that would cause any existing tree to be materially damaged or displaced.

(C) Pole-Mounted Accessory Equipment. All pole-mounted accessory equipment must be installed at least 10 feet above grade and flush to the pole to minimize the overall visual profile. If any applicable health and safety regulations prohibit flush- mounted equipment, the maximum separation permitted between the accessory equipment and the pole shall be the minimum separation required by such regulations. All pole-mounted equipment and required or permitted signage must be placed and oriented away from adjacent sidewalks and structures. Pole-mounted equipment may be installed behind street, traffic or other signs to the extent that the installation complies with applicable public health and safety regulations. All cables, wires and other connectors must be routed through conduits within the pole, and all conduit attachments, cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed from public view. To the extent that cables, wires and other connectors cannot be routed through the pole, applicants shall route them through a single external conduit or shroud that has been finished to match the underlying support structure.

(D) Base-Mounted Accessory Equipment. All base-mounted accessory equipment must be installed within a shroud, enclosure or pedestal integrated into the base of the support structure. All cables, wires and other connectors routed between the antenna and base-mounted equipment must be concealed from public view.

(E) Ground-Mounted Accessory Equipment. The Director shall not approve any ground-mounted accessory equipment including, but not limited to, any utility or transmission equipment, pedestals, cabinets, panels or electric meters.

(F) Accessory Equipment Volume. All accessory equipment associated with a small wireless facility installed above ground level shall not cumulatively exceed: (i) nine (9) cubic feet in volume if installed in a residential district or within 500 feet from any structure approved for a residential use; or (ii) seventeen (17) cubic feet in volume

2-18

ATTACHMENT 2

if installed in a non-residential district. The volume calculation shall include any shroud, cabinet or other concealment device used in connection with the non- antenna accessory equipment. The volume calculation shall not include any equipment or other improvements placed underground.

(4) Streetlights. Applicants that propose to install small wireless facilities on an existing streetlight must remove and replace the existing streetlight with one substantially similar to the City’s standards and specifications but designed to accommodate wireless antennas and accessory equipment, unless the existing streetlight has been designed and engineered to support a small wireless facility in accordance with applicable health and safety regulations. To mitigate any material changes in the streetlighting patterns, the replacement pole must: (A) be located as close to the removed pole as possible; (B) be aligned with the other existing streetlights; and (C) include a luminaire at substantially the same height and distance from the pole as the luminaire on the removed pole. All antennas must be installed above the pole within a single, canister style shroud or radome that tapers to the pole.

(5) Wood Utility Poles. Applicants that propose to install small wireless facilities on an existing wood utility pole must install all antennas above the pole unless the applicant demonstrates that mounting the antennas above the pole would be technically infeasible as supported by clear and convincing evidence in the written record. Side-mounted antennas on a stand-off bracket or extension arm must be concealed within a shroud. All cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed within the side-arm mount or extension arm. The maximum horizontal separation between the antenna and the pole shall be the minimum separation required by applicable health and safety regulations.

(6) New, Non-Replacement Poles. Applicants that propose to install small wireless facilities on a new, non-replacement pole must demonstrate that any existing structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible as supported by clear and convincing evidence in the written record. Any new, non-replacement pole must be a new streetlight substantially similar to the City’s standards and specifications but designed to accommodate wireless antennas and accessory equipment located immediately adjacent to the proposed location. If there are no existing streetlights in the immediate vicinity, the applicant may install a metal or composite pole capable of concealing all the accessory equipment either within the pole or within an integrated enclosure located at the base of the pole. The pole diameter shall not exceed twelve (12) inches and any base enclosure diameter shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches. All antennas, whether on a new streetlight or other new pole, must be installed above the pole within a single, canister style shroud or radome.

(7) Encroachments over Private Property. Small wireless facilities may not encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-of-way without the property owner’s express written consent.

(8) Backup Power Sources. Fossil-fuel based backup power sources shall not be permitted within the public rights-of-way; provided, however, that connectors or receptacles may be installed for temporary backup power generators used in an emergency declared by federal, state or local officials.

(9) Obstructions; Public Safety. Small wireless facilities and any associated equipment or

2-19

ATTACHMENT 2

improvements shall not physically interfere with or impede access to any: (A) worker access to any above-ground or underground infrastructure for traffic control, streetlight or public transportation, including without limitation any curb control sign, parking meter, vehicular traffic sign or signal, pedestrian traffic sign or signal, barricade reflectors; (B) access to any public transportation vehicles, shelters, street furniture or other improvements at any public transportation stop; (C) worker access to above-ground or underground infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency; (D) fire hydrant or water valve; (E) access to any doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or other ingress and egress points to any building appurtenant to the rights-of-way; or (F) access to any fire escape.

(10) Utility Connections. All cables and connectors for telephone, data backhaul, primary electric and other similar utilities must be routed underground in conduits large enough to accommodate future collocated wireless facilities. Undergrounded cables and wires must transition directly into the pole base without any external doghouse. All cables, wires and connectors between the underground conduits and the antennas and other accessory equipment shall be routed through and concealed from view within: (A) internal risers or conduits if on a concrete, composite or similar pole; or (B) a cable shroud or conduit mounted as flush to the pole as possible if on a wood pole or other pole without internal cable space. The Director shall not approve new overhead utility lines or service drops merely because compliance with the undergrounding requirements would increase the project cost.

(11) Spools and Coils. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled or otherwise stored on the pole outside equipment cabinets or shrouds.

(12) Electric Meters. Small wireless facilities shall use flat-rate electric service or other method that obviates the need for a separate above-grade electric meter. If flat-rate service is not available, applicants may install a shrouded smart meter. The Director shall not approve a separate ground-mounted electric meter pedestal.

(13) Street Trees. To preserve existing landscaping in the public rights-of-way, all work performed in connection with small wireless facilities shall not cause any street trees to be trimmed, damaged or displaced. If any street trees are damaged or displaced, the applicant shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to plant and maintain replacement trees, consistent with the City’s list of pre-approved street trees, at the site for the duration of the permit term.

(c) Small Wireless Facilities Outside the Public Right-of-Way.

(1) Overall Height. Small wireless facilities on private property may not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in the applicable zoning district or overlay zone.

(2) Setbacks. Small wireless facilities on private property may not encroach into any applicable setback for main structures in the subject zoning district.

(3) Backup Power Sources. The Director shall not approve any diesel generators or other similarly noisy or noxious generators in or within 250 feet from any residence; provided, however, the Director may approve sockets or other connections used for temporary

2-20

ATTACHMENT 2

backup generators.

(4) Parking; Access. Any equipment or improvements constructed or installed in connection with any small wireless facilities must not reduce any parking spaces below the minimum requirement for the subject property. Whenever feasible, small wireless facilities must use existing parking and access rather than construct new parking or access improvements. Any new parking or access improvements must be the minimum size necessary to reasonably accommodate the proposed use.

(5) Towers, Poles and Other Freestanding Small Wireless Facilities. All new towers, poles or other freestanding structures that support small wireless facilities must be made from a metal or composite material capable of concealing all the accessory equipment, including cables, mounting brackets, radios, and utilities, either within the support structure or within an integrated enclosure located at the base of the support structure. All antennas must be installed above the pole in a single, canister-style shroud or radome. The support structure and all transmission equipment must be painted with flat/neutral colors that match the support structure. The pole height shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet or the height limit for the applicable zoning district or overlay zone, whichever is less. The pole diameter shall not exceed twelve (12) inches and any base enclosure diameter shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches.

(6) Building-Mounted Small Wireless Facilities.

(A) Preferred Concealment Techniques. All applicants must propose new non-tower small wireless facilities that are completely concealed and architecturally integrated into the existing facade or rooftop features with no visible impacts from any publicly accessible areas at ground level (examples include, but are not limited to, antennas behind existing parapet walls or facades replaced with RF-transparent material and finished to mimic the replaced materials). Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that integration with existing features is technically infeasible, the applicant may propose completely concealed new structures or appurtenances designed to mimic the support structure’s original architecture and proportions (examples include, but are not limited to, steeples and chimneys).

(B) Facade-Mounted Equipment. When small wireless facilities cannot be placed behind existing parapet walls or other existing screening elements, the Director may approve facade-mounted equipment in accordance with this subsection (c)(6)(B). All facade-mounted equipment must be concealed behind screen walls and mounted flush to the facade. The Director may not approve “pop-out” screen boxes. Except in industrial zones, the Director may not approve any exposed facade- mounted antennas, including but not limited to exposed antennas painted to match the facade.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any and all amendments to the Small Wireless Facilities policies, procedures, standards and limitations herein, as deemed necessary from time-to-time shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council.

2-21

ATTACHMENT 2

I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was adopted as a regular meeting of the City Council on the 17th day of December 2018.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

______LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

EXHIBITS: A. General Plan 2020, Exhibit 22-San Rafael Roadways and Arterials

2-22

ATTACHMENT 3 23-Point Recommendations from "SG-Free Marin"

Ordinance Recommendations, 11/29 Planning Commission

Dear Fairfax Planning Commission:

Below you will find a comprehensive list of recommendations for our Fairfax Urgency Ordinance addressing 5G. Please consider these as you make recommendations and edits for the Town Council, and factor in the following suggestions we believe will be helpful in creating the strongest, most effective ordinance.

Attachments we refer to below include:

1. ADA/US Access Board Information 2. Property Value Reduction Information 3. Permitting Process and Measurements 4. Peter Lacques Recommendations

Below are proposed ideas/language to be included in the ordinance:

1. Zoning and other prohibitions- Installations in residential zoning districts, public rights of way and easements in all zones are prohibited. Note: the Mill Valley Ordinance has an unintentional loophole on public rights of way­ this needs to be addressed in all further ordinances, to make sure public rights of way and easements are also prohibited in zones where facilities are and are not permitted. We recommend eliminating the following additional zones: CC, CL, PD. We recommend keeping CS and CH as allowable zones, but further restricting areas by parcel delineation, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Also eliminate the item stating "in the public right of way with the closest district being the commercial district". (we can provide exact details of where to make these amendments in the ordinance.)

2. Property Values- We have data that shows that property values can drop up to 20% when a small cell antenna is nearby, and 94% of home buyers are less interested in a property (see attachment #2 Property Value Reduction Information). We are recommending language be included in our Fairfax ordinance that protects property owners and property values from this effective "taking" of Fairfax residents' property should 5G installations go forward. Please see attachment #2 for more details and our specific recommendations.

3. Public Process- Upon proposal of any wireless facilities from telecoms, the town must notify the public via website, postings, and paper mail. Include all residents within 3000 feet. During the application process, the town must provide a public comment period and schedule meetings to address issues about the proposed facility. Telecoms are required to use story poles to demonstrate actual size and physical impact. Public notice mailings should include information about the notification contents on the outside of the envelope such as, "Notice of Nearby Cell Antenna Proposal" to ensure the public sees and has an opportunity fully participate. See permitting process details, Attachment #3, Permitting Process and Measurments (composed by Frank Leahy, Mill Valley). Note: public hearings have been effective in discouraging the telecoms for Montgomery, MD and Burlington, MA.

4. Permitting process- The town must adopt a more rigorous permitting process. A new telecom permit application should be designed, with new components. As stated in the attached content, this equipment can often be remotely upgraded or changed via software at any time, so both permitting and monitoring process should be specific, frequent, and rigorous. Details for exactly what to include in the process can be found in the attached document from electrical engineer Frank Leahy, item #3.

5. Monitoring- The town of Fairfax/San Anselmo must create a robust signal monitoring plan and use our own contractors to do the work- not industry contractors. In addition to developing a protocol on how and where to measure, the issue of how frequently measurement should be taken needs attention. Once per year is grossly inadequate. We would like to recommend including language for an ongoing real time monitoring plan that the telecoms would pay for. We need to know specifics about what kind and how strong the signals are from antennas. This requires more research, but we think is quite reasonable and feasible. If this cannot be done, then we will need monitoring at least once per month. (The attached document on permitting process recommendations written by Mill Valley electrical engineer Frank Leahy gives some guidance and suggestions on this as well, item #3.)

6. ADA- Add language about the 'ADA, which addresses electrical sensitivity as a federally recognized disability: "The reviewing authority may NOT grant an exception if the exception itself violates federal and/or state law, , including, but not limited to, the ADA", (Please see Attachment #1, ADA/US Access Board lnformaiton.) [Note: the ADA was originally part of the revised Urgency Ordinance, then appeared to be removed by town staff edits. We are asking that the content about the ADA be replaced and addressed.]

7. Undergrounding - Require undergrounding for cables and accessory equipment for facilities in the public right-of-way and amend language to state that ground-level equipment MUST be undergrounded. Omit "if feasible" in ordinance (Fairfax has "if feasible" language). Undergrounding must occur within 3 feet of the utility pole on which the antennas are mounted. This language should also be spelled ,out in the Conditions of Approval section. Before any digging occurs, a full cultural resources evaluation should be required (see above). Also, Fairfax has some undergrounding districts. If we restrict installation to these districts, it could create a strong disincentive for antenna installation here. It is our understanding that undergrounding can cost telecoms 3 to 10 times as much as installing equipment on poles.

8. Co-location- Co-location (the addition of multiple antennas on an existing antenna structure) rules in California provide telecoms a green light with virtually no controls or regulations by local jurisdictions unless the there are changes to the physical dimensions of the structure that the new equipment will be installed on. Co-location may be difficult to fight in places where there is existing equipment, but we have identified a problem with this issue. Once equipment is installed in a town on a pole, then anything afterwards is considered co-location. We need to have language in place that does not allow this to be abused, and that ensures that telecoms do not circumvent the normal permitting processes we are planning on putting into place (such as public meetings, etc.) This is complex because co-location is protected by state law (or possibly federal), and local laws do not supersede state and federal -laws, yet this is a critical element to review. We would like to discuss this with you before 11 /29 if possible.

9. Exceptions Clauses- We have had many suggestions about exceptions and how they could work for us or against us. If we are excessively restrictive in other areas, having an exception clause can protect us from being sued by the telecoms as it provides them a doorway in. If, however, we have too broad of an exceptions clause, it creates loopholes that can be big enough for 5G antennas to get through too easily. We would like the town's legal council to craft this skillfully with the town's interest as the priority rather than the telecoms, and to not allow a major loophole for telecom entry.

10. Fire Hazard and Other Hazard Potential-A full fire hazard potential assessment must be conducted that includes the presence of nearby vegetation and structures. All materials in the facilities must be disclosed, including hazardous materials in any and all equipment. No poles should be overloaded such that a risk is created for life or property. There should be no co-location of equipment on such facilities. Mechanical consideration: poles and other structures must exceed general guidelines to ensure they can withstand earthquakes and storms. There are studies that show equipment killing trees and drying local vegetation through desiccation creates further fire hazards. This needs further assessment, which we can help provide. 11. Other Hazards- 5G equipment is frequently installed on poles underneath or adjacent to electrical wires and equipment, which has been the cause of several recent local fires (Santa Rosa, Camp, Malibu, etc.). Additionally, as indicated above, studies show equipment killing and drying out adjacent vegetation. [Please see the additions to Chapter 20 in Fairfax, attached­ Peter Lacques proposed changes to urgency ordinance 9/26, listed also in the Findings section of the ordinance, Attachement #4, Peter Lacques Recommendations.]

12. Decorative Light Poles- Prohibit installations on all Decorative Light Poles. In Fairfax, we have asked for this prohibition. (To protect our street lamps from a 50% height increase, amend by adding, "The downtown decorative street light poles are exempt from this section.")

13. Viewsheds and Aesthetics Considerations-Viewsheds and general aesthetics need to be considered via the design review process for all applications with full public noticing and involvement. Consideration should include historic preservation considerations and the general aesthetic character of our towns. Facilities must not disrupt or alter the aesthetic beauty or historic character of the town. This should be subject to review by the Town Planning Commission and approved by the Town Council.

14. Schools and Child Care Centers- Similarly, we wish to restrict a 1000 foot buffer around schools, child care centers, and elder facilities from consideration of 5G installation. As with the item above, this can be accomplished through our zoning restrictions.

Related to this: are there any opportunities for potential compensation from the telecoms to pay for relocating children from schools impacted by 5G radiation? There may be issues around inter-district transfer limitations and potentially forcing kids into private schools which are very expensive. If this were to happen, who would pay? And, what about lost revenue for schools that lose children due to transfers to other schools? This is a very real possibility we believe needs to be addressed.

15. Health Care Facilities - We recommend that the Town of Fairfax require a 1000-foot buffer around medical care facilities for 5G small cell and other similar wireless antennas to ensure safety of recovering patients. [Note: We are recommending only certain planning zones be eligible for 5G antennas. Within those zones, there will be further restrictions. This item may best be addressed in our zoning section without mentioning Care Meridian in Fairfax, our only health care facility (head injury care facility). This may be a wise strategy as mentioning health is, of course, a red flag for telecoms.]

16. Establishing setbacks and antenna intervals- We know each antenna can transmit up to at least 1 GB/sec of data at 3000 feet. Even with prohibition in the residential areas for antennas, this would impact a large swath of town, both residential and commercial. With setbacks and antenna intervals, as well as limiting zoning and strategic placing, we can control where antennas are placed. We want to minimize exposure to people living in mixed use zones and on the edge of commercial zones. Our strategy is to eliminate most of the zones, all with residential, except for two commercial zones. Within those zones we are recommending further restricting locations on specific parcels to protect the most vulnerable populations, among others (children and elderly, etc.)

17. Endangered/Threatened Species, ESA- Fairfax is home to several endangered and threatened species. Here in Fairfax we have spotted owls, and in our creeks we have threatened steelhead and other listed species. We need to review the Natural Resources Database to see what else we have here. There are increasing numbers of studies emerging that focus on insect and other wildlife impacts from this technology. We recently learned that there may be a state or federal law prohibiting local jurisdictions from using environmental impacts to stop 5G installations, but we are not sure if this is the case. Using provisions in the Endangered Species Act could certainly help, especially with regards to creating a rationale for buffers. More research is needed here, and we can help in this area.

18. Trees- The town of Fairfax has a tree ordinance that requires a permitting process to remove trees. Fairfax has a committee that reviews applications and make recommendations for approval/disapproval. There are studies that show cell tower radiation kills trees. The study we recently reviewed was focused on cell towers installed in trees, but any trees in close proximity would have similar effects. Telecoms would need to do a tree analysis within a certain number of feet of antennas and if there is a risk of killing trees, the telecoms should be required to apply for a tree removal permit if equipment is installed within 100 feet of trees.

19. Cultural Resources- Under CEQA there needs to be full assessment of cultural resources, including artifacts buried under the ground. We are asking for undergrounding of equipment and want to be assured that there are no cultural artifacts where telecoms may want to dig, and if there are, the proper process is followed (archeologists on site, etc.). 20. Cumulative Impact Assessment- CEQA requires cumulative impact assessments. Despite the FCC and 1996 FT A's prohibition on health as a rationale for prohibiting installations, there may be other cumulative impacts that need to be assessed, such as visual or aesthetic and environmental impacts. We have not come up with other specific examples, but perhaps there could be language included about health if deemed useful.

21. Conflicts with Other Plans and Regulations- CEQA has a category of "Conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation". We have outlined our undergrounding districts and our tree ordinance here. These are two that we can think of, please investigate to see if there are more.

22. Future Damages- Regarding health, we want to investigate if there is anything in the law that allows corporations to be held liable for future damages (could a coal burning plant be liable for future damage to air quality or health of neighbors, etc.?) We are curious if something like that could be applied here.

23. Noise Assessment/Evaluation- There should be no equipment that generates noise whatsoever. Ordinance needs to have language that specifies details around noise and abatement, including containment if there are fans or other noisy components. Marin Independent Journal 4000 Civic Center Drive, Suite 301 San Rafael, CA 94903 415-382-7335 [email protected]

2070419

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Legal No. 0006265233 CITY CLERK, ROOM 209 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-1560

PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Marin

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

12/07/2018

I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 7th day of December, 2018.

Signature

PROOF OF PUBLICATION

r.BP7-11/10/16 1 City of San Rafael Conversation with Adam Silver

Associated Constituent

Adam Silver Phone Numbers: C-1057588, added on December 3rd, 2018 at 6:32 PM Email Addresses:

Locations: None

Conversation: First Name: Adam Last Name: Silver Email Address: Phone Number: 4157178580 Subject: SMALL CELL “5G” WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY Message: I'm concerned the city will have no way to verify, and no recourse, if small cell sites prove to not be compliant with FCC guidelines concerning microwave emissions and microwave emissions at prescribed distances. The city should add, as part of their 'fees', charges for independent testing and verification of each cell site's compliance. Furthermore, the vendor, shall be held responsible to fix or replace any cell sites out of compliance and be subject to re-verification at the vendor's expense. Furthermore, data communications between small cell-sites be done via fiber optic cable or some other 'wired' means to insure that data transport does not happen wirelessly between cell sites, thus increasing transmissions.

A: LOCATION

Inbound form submission from Adam Silver to Contact the City Council on December 3rd, 2018 at 6:32 PM

Thank you for your message. We value your input and strive to respond to any questions or concerns within 2 business days. Thank you, City of San Rafael

Automated message sent to Adam Silver via City Manager's Office on December 3rd, 2018 at 6:32 PM From: Sangita Moskow Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:48 AM To: Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Andrew McCullough; Kate Colin; Maribeth Bushey; Jim Schutz Paul Jensen; Alicia Giudice; Caron Parker; Lisa Goldfien Subject: 5G ordinance

Thank you so much for supporting the health of the citizens of San Rafael and Marin County.

I am including part of an article about some other people who are thinking of human and animal safety:

"It all comes down to this: Jim Turner, Esq., President of NISLAPP (The National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy, says: “NISLAPP considers it a mistake to place new high-frequency radiating antennas in local communities, in very close proximity to homes, offices and schools, when no pre-market health testing at scale has been conducted on the effects of the radiation emitted, to our knowledge, and when much safer hard-wired internet access technologies are readily available. We strongly support Senator Blumenthal’s request of FCC Commissioner Carr to provide the documentation evidencing the FCC’s ‘safety determination for 5G,’ along with the supporting scientific citations used in making that determination.” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181203006017/en/Blumenthal- Presses-FCC-Commissioner-Brendan-Carr-Disclose

There actually is a huge amount of info about health problems with other EMF-radiating technology like the "smart" meters.

To opt out, BEFORE installation and negative effects, makes sense.

Furthermore 5G does not offer any great tech advantages to citizens--it is for the convenience of the telecoms.

I would not worry about lawsuits because companies do not want the bad publicity.

Thank you, Sangita Moskow

Sangita Moskow

For sound samples: http://www.lisasangitamoskow.com From: Lonner Holden Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:57 PM To: Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Andrew McCullough; Kate Colin; Maribeth Bushey; Jim Schutz; Paul Jensen; Alicia Giudice; Caron Parker; Lisa Goldfien Subject: Dec. 3rd SR City Council Meeting & 5G

Dear Mayor, Council Members & Staff,

As a resident of San Rafael for over 25 years, I want to thank you for your astonishing sustained presence during the long-houred meeting on Decemeber 3rd.

You listened to perhaps a record number of open-period public comments on a single topic; your reflections at the end of the evening reflected sincere interest in the concerns of your constituents, and your questions to the attorney, Mr. Johnson who advised on the FCC ruling, and staff who drafted a urgency Ordinance were intelligent and far reaching, seeking a skillful strategy for protecting the local jurisdiction from federal and telecom domination.

As you work on your current draft, please incorporate into the new Ordinance/Resolution, specific Revisions and Recommendations submitted by Vicki Sievers, Kim Hahn, Bob Berg and Alex Stadtner.

Many Thanks, Lonner Holden From: Arthur D. Saftlas Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:28 PM To: Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Kate Colin; Jim Schutz; Andrew McCullough; Lisa Goldfien; Alicia Giudice; Paul Jensen; Caron Parker; Maribeth Bushey; Melanie Moran Subject: I spoke December 3rd on 5G...

I spoke December 3rd on the 5G issue. I was not able to finish, so I am sending this simple solution for your consideration.

NO 5G IN MARIN COUNTY, PERIOD!

I suggest our City Councils clearly say NO to the FCC. NO 5G installations of any kind in Marin, until it can be proven safe for us and the environment. The mandates of the FCC, by not allowing health and safety to be a consideration, clearly show their mandates are unjust. We have an obligation and a right to refuse to obey unjust laws.

A popular quote of Thomas Jefferson is, ”If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." The Thomas Jefferson foundation website, suggests this quote it is a paraphrase of Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

And there is Jury Nullification, a right not forthrightly shared by judges. A jury has the right to nullify an unjust law and free a defendant so charged. We disobey or counter sue and nullify the FCC by jury or grand jury. We need to be proactive and not lay down to this Industry.

What I am proposing is simple. We just say NO, period. The FCC has the power of the Federal Government, but we are stronger, because we have LOVE. We have love for ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and our beautiful natural environment. Marin is a special place, a garden spot in an insane world. We refuse to be polluted by big money interests.

To say NO to the rulers takes courage. Courage comes from the French corage meaning 'heart' and 'spirit' and Latin, cor, meaning ‘more at heart’, ‘inner strength’. We in Marin County have heart and spirit, we are an advanced society of intelligent beings. We must come together face to face, heart to heart, where our ultimate power of love resides. The revolution starts now, and I was assured by Marin TV, it will be televised. From: Victoria Sievers To: Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Andrew McCullough; Kate Colin; Maribeth Bushey; Jim Schutz; Paul Jensen; Alicia Giudice; Caron Parker; Lisa Goldfien; Lindsay Lara Cc: Kim Hahn; Bob Berg; Alex Stadtner Subject: U.S. legislators challenge FCC on 5G safety Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 10:52:33 PM

Hello Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff, You may well have already learned of this December 3 letter to the FCC from Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, but we'd like to be certain that you know you're in responsible company when you express and exercise precaution about this untested technology. Also, below the ehtrust link to the letter, please find Dr. Martin Pall's statement on how EMF/RF radiation causes plants to become more flammable. This critical info was presented by a speaker at the Dec. 3 San Rafael hearing. Thank you for your interest in protecting our city and its residents. Vicki Sievers, EMF Safety Network https://ehtrust.org/u-s-senator-richard-blumenthal-and-u-s-representative-anna-g-eshoo- ca-18-letter-to-federal-communications-commission-commissioner-brendan-car-about-5g- health-hazards/

Pima County, AZ 5G Awareness Coalition Public Forum: Is 5G a Technological Revolution or a Pandora’s Box? Nov 17, 2018 — Tucson, AZ Live-Streamed Event Link to event video

0:00:15 — Ashley Portman: Start of Program • 0:02:30 — Elizabeth Kelley • 0:24:30 — Dr. Martin Pall at 1:44:54 in the video talks about terpenes*, produced by plants, in his 90-page document: https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards--dr- martin-l.-pall--eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf • 0:54:35 — Dr. Timothy Schoechle • 1:18:00 — Eric Windheim • 1:37:55 — Questions & Answers • 2:02:00 — Ashley Portman: End of Program * At 1:48:13 . . . Q: "How do EMFs make plants more flammable?" A: "What EMFS do is that they work in the cells of plants very similarly to the way EMFS work in the cells of our bodies, by increasing intracellular calcium, by working on the channels in the plasma membranes in plants. I have published on that. What happens as a consequence of that is that the plants make much, much higher levels of terpenes, which are highly volatile and highly flammable. It's a bit like having a light spray of gasoline on the plants. So they do become more flammable." City of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Meeting: City Council - Nov 05 2018

Department Staff Contact

Administration David A. Storer, AICP, Planning & Community Services Director John Abaci, Assistant City Attorney

Agenda Item Title

Discuss, Consider, and Take Possible Action on Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending the Sonoma Municipal to Add Chapter 5.30 Supplementing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Regulations in the Municipal Code and Replacing References to Chapter 5.32 with Chapter 5.30 within Title 19 (Integrated Development Regulations and Guidelines) of the Sonoma Municipal Code and Finding this Action to be Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(B)(3), 15301,15303, and 15305

Summary

At its meeting of November 5, 2018, the City Council will consider taking action on a proposed Urgency Ordinance that would supplement the telecommunications facilities siting regulations in Chapter 5.32 with wireless telecommunications facilities siting regulations in new Chapter 5.30. The new regulations would respond to a recent order of the Federal Communications Commission on siting of small cell wireless telecommunications facilities and modify the regulations under the Municipal Code to establish siting regulations for small cell wireless facilities and update the other regulations on siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. An urgency ordinance may be introduced and adopted at the same meeting under Government Code Section 36937(b) to protect the health, safety, and welfare. Introduction and adoption of an urgency ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Upon adoption an urgency ordinance will take effect immediately.

Recommended Council Action

Introduce and Adopt an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Sonoma Amending Title 5 of the Sonoma Municipal Code To Add Chapter 5.30 Supplementing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Regulations in the Municipal Code and Replacing References to Chapter 5.32 with Chapter 5.30 within Title 19 of the Municipal Code and Finding this Action to be Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(B)(3), 15301, 15303, and 15305.

Alternative Actions

1. Provide direction of edits and changes and introduce and adopt as modified. 2. Decline to adopt the ordinance and thereby allow the regulations in Chapter 5.32 to continue to regulate the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities.

Financial Impact

No immediate financial impact.

Environmental Review Status

Environmental Impact Report Approved/Certified Negative Declaration No Action Required Exempt Action Requested Not Applicable

Attachments

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT - Wireless Urgency Ordinance Draft Urgency Ordinance for Wireless

Alignment with Council Goals: Not Applicable

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

N/A

CC:

n/a

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

Discuss, Consider, and Take Possible Action on Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending the Sonoma Municipal Code to Add Chapter 5.30, Supplementing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Regulations in the Municipal Code, and Replacing References to Chapter 5.32 with Chapter 5.30 within Title 19 (Integrated Development Regulations and Guidelines) of the Sonoma Municipal Code, and Finding this Action to be Exempt from Environmental Review Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(B)(3),15301 15303, and 15305.

For the City Council Meeting of November 5, 2018

Background On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a new Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (Order or FCC Order) which will significantly implact the area of local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities siting. On October 15, the Order was incorporated into the Federal Register, thus establishing the new rules for local regulations on siting of wireless telecommunications facilities, particularly applicable to small cell facilities1. On January 14, 2019, the Order is scheduled to take effect.

Small cell wireless facilities are primarily installed within public rights-of-way and as such create significant and far-reaching local concerns in traffic and pedestrian safety, aesthetics, protection and preservation of public property, and the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right- of-way can pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless facilities; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; impacts to trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines; land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities which may negatively impact the unique quality, historic nature and character of the City.

The Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and accumulation of small cell facilities over a short period of time in order to enable deployment of technology that the Order claims will enable increased competition in healthcare, Internet of Things applications, life-saving car technologies and create jobs, possibly increasing the U.S. economy by as much as $100 billion by speeding up the deployment of small cells by only one year. In order to effectuate this policy,

1 1 The Order defines small cell wireless facilities as meeting the following conditions: 1) satisfy one of the following-a)mounted on structures no higher than 50 feet (including antennae); b) mounted on structures no more than 10% taller than other adjacent structures; or c) not extend existing structures to a height of more than 50 feet or 10%, whichever is greater; 2) antenna is no greater than 3 cubic feet in volume; 3) all other wireless equipment associated with structure is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; 4) do not result in human exposure to RF radiation in excess of the FCC guidelines; 5) not located on Tribal lands; and 5) not require antenna registration. the Order reduces the “shot clock” period allowable to cities to review, comment upon, consider, and make a final determination on small cells applications for as many as 90 days for new facilities and as many as 30 days for collocated and modified facilities.

The Order provides that the trend toward small cell technology to deploy 5G and other next- generation wireless services requires greater densification and pace of build out to enable widespread deployment as is sought by the wireless industry. The Order states that as much as 80% of all new deployments will entail small cell technology going forward. The Order provides that wireless providers variably estimate that the preference towards small cell facilities will likely result in ten to one hundred times the number of wireless facilities existing in the nation, and estimates of the number of small cells nationwide would grow from 150,000 this year to nearly 800,000 by year 2026. Based on estimates of small cell facilities transmitting only a few hundred feet by some providers as stated by the Order, the number of small cells could grow to as many as 25-29 per provider per square mile within the City of Sonoma alone.

The City currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way through its telecommunications ordinance which does not focus specifically on wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way. The existing standards have not been updated to reflect the development of current wireless telecommunications technologies, such as small cell wireless facilities and DAS systems (Distributed Antenna Systems) which are now the preferred method of providing wireless telecommunications services, trends, or necessary legal requirements for such preferred methods and wireless telecommunications facilities covered under Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, among other federal and state law requirements now applicable to local agencies. Further, the primary focus of the existing telecommunications facilities regulations in the Sonoma Municipal Code is wireless telecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and practical issues that arise in connection with wireless telecommunications facilities deployed in the public right-of-way.

The lack of regulations that are specific to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way combined with the Order’s regulations to hasten the spread and development of small cell facilities would, if continued, jeopardize the health and safety of the public by allowing applications for small cell facilities to be submitted and subject to limited local siting regulations resulting from the implementation of the Order. There would not be sufficient time for the City to develop regulations specific to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way before such applications would be made. Yet, under the new “shot clock” rules such applications would need to be approved within either 60 or 90 days of the application being submitted. Any requirements that were placed into effect by the regulations being developed by the City could not be applied to the application before such application would be approved under the new “shot clock” rules. Such a state of affairs would result in facilities being approved that are inconsistent with appropriate regulations being developed by the City in order to exercise the degree of local authority within the parameters allowable under the Order. Thus, projects would be applied for and approved by law without local authority being properly, appropriately, and within the confines of federal and state laws exercised by the City which would in turn result in potentially numerous wireless telecommunications facilities being constructed and existing without local controls for as long as the life of the facility. Proposed Ordinance There are in general four types of wireless telecommunications facilities siting applications covered by the proposed ordinance.

 The first is small cell wireless facilities which are characterized by antennas, radio units, and other equipment being placed on utility poles not owned by the City. The Order has established that small cell wireless facility applications are subject to a 60-day or 90-day period (depending upon the circumstances of the application) from the date that the application is deemed complete for processing until the date the final determination is made. (This period to make a final determination is commonly referred to as the “shot clock” period under federal law, except that under each of the following shot clock periods the period begins when the application is first submitted, rather than when it is deemed complete for processing.)  The second category is wireless facilities that are not considered “small cells” which were typically characterized by the term “towers.” These are subject to a shot clock period of 150, 90, or 60 days depending on the specific circumstances of the application.  The third category is wireless collocation facilities which meet certain pre-conditions under Government Code Section 65850.6 and are entitled to an administrative review under that section. This third category is subject to a shot clock period of 90 days unless it is a small cell facility, which is subject to 60 days. If a collocation facility application does not meet the prerequisites under Government Code Section 65850.6, then it is subject to a 60-day shot clock period for small cells or 90-day period for all others.  The fourth category is for requests made under Section 6409(a) for modifications or collocations that do not constitute a “substantial change” to the existing facility (as that term is defined under federal law). Such requests must be approved by the City within a 60-day period or are deemed granted under federal law.

Below is a brief summary of the provisions of the proposed ordinance:

1. Use Permit and Conditions of Approval (Sections 5.30.040 and 5.30.090) All wireless telecommunications facilities (including small cells mounted on utility poles and cell towers on parcels of property) require a use permit approved by the Planning Commission (with the exception of modifications/collocations subject to Section 6409(a)). A permit determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. A use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility may be obtained within any zoning district, with the exception of residential zones and the Plaza Retail Overlay District. Use permit proceedings under Section 19.54.040 shall apply in addition to the new chapter. A use permit will have a maximum term of 10 years. Conditions of approval for a use permit include: 1) written certification that the facility meets the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF (radiofrequency) emissions standards (failure to comply with this condition shall be grounds for revocation); 2) post a performance bond with the City to assure maintenance, removal, and landscaping obligations; and 3) defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless for approval of the facility or claims related to the facility if within the public right-of-way.

2. Applications and Exceptions (Sections 5.30.050 and 5.30.120) Applications for wireless telecommunications facilities require the following non-inclusive list of submittals in order to be complete and proceed to a determination: a) Photographs, visual impact analysis, and detailed site and engineering plans; b) Master plan of all facilities reasonably anticipated to be constructed within two years of the submittal of the application. The City may not accept applications that are not consistent with the master plan previously submitted unless the applicant demonstrates need or materially changed conditions which could not have been reasonably anticipated within the two-year period; c) Written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort to locate the facility in the least intrusive location and screened to the greatest extent feasible; d) RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer that certifies the proposed facility meets the federal RF standards and exposure limits; e) Notice to owners of all properties within 500 feet of the application; f) Indemnification agreement to indemnify City in any proceeding to challenge approval of the facility.

Also, the applicant would be required to hold a community meeting at least two weeks prior to the planning commission hearing on the use permit.

In addition, an applicant believing that it is entitled to any exception to the regulations and standards established under the ordinance under state or federal law must make its request for the exception being claimed at the time of the application and include an analysis of the availability and feasibility of other alternatives, as well as, a description of the need for the exception and analysis of how the need would be met by the exception.

3. Design and development standards (Section 5.30.070 through 5.30.080) Several design and development standards are established by the ordinance, including yard setback requirements that would otherwise be applicable under the applicable zoning regulations, noise standards, antenna height, pole height and width limitations, and the placement of accessory equipment within an underground vault to the greatest extent feasible.

Additionally, each pole-mounted wireless telecommunications facility may not be less than 1,500 feet apart.

4. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Covered Under Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (Section 5.30.130) This ordinance applies to all collocations or modifications to an existing wireless tower or base station submitted with a written request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). Section 6409(a) generally requires that State and local governments “…not deny, and shall approve” requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an existing tower or base station. Such applications undergo administrative review, and the proposed ordinance outlines required findings for approval, denial and appeal procedure.

5. Collocation Facilities Covered under CA Government Code Section 65850.6 (Section 5.30.140) This section provides the requirements, standards, and regulations for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility for which subsequent collocation is a permitted use pursuant to California law.

6. Additional requirements Additional regulations are established throughout the remainder of the ordinance including business license and encroachment permit requirements, emergency deployment, operation and maintenance standards, permit expiration, revocation, cessation of use/abandonment, removal of equipment. Environmental Review The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The proposed ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that small cell facility regulations will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because they have no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Moreover, even if the proposed ordinance comprises a project for CEQA analysis, the ordinance falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment” because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. Finally, the wireless facilities themselves are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, which exempts existing facilities where there is negligible or no expansion of an existing use, Section 15303, which exempts the installation of new, small equipment and facilities in small structures and Section 15305, which exempts minor encroachment permits. City of Sonoma

ORDINANCE # _____ - 2018

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AMENDING THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 5.30 SUPPLEMENTING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES REGULATIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPLACING REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 5.32 WITH CHAPTER 5.30 WITHIN TITLE 19 (INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND FINDING THIS ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3), 15301, 15303, and 15305

WHEREAS, This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b). The facts constituting the urgency are as follows:

(1) The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City's Municipal Code to provide uniform and comprehensive standards, regulations and permit requirements for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City's public right-of-way, in light of the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in “In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment” adopted September 26, 2018 by the Federal Communications Commission (“Order”) setting new limitations on local standards for, and accelerating the processing of, the siting of small cell wireless telecommunications facilities1 by local jurisdictions over such applications.

(2) Providers within the wireless telecommunications industry have expressed interest in submitting applications, or have already submitted applications, for the installation of "small cell" wireless telecommunications facilities in the City's public rights-of-way of the City. Other California cities have also received applications for small cells to be located within the public right-of-way.

(3) The recent FCC Order provides that all local jurisdictions must comply with various restrictions on the exercise of local aesthetic, zoning, public works, and fee restrictions when dealing with wireless installation siting applications by the effective date of the Order which is January 14, 2019. The FCC Order further provides that all agencies should be capable of fully implementing its provisions within 180 days of its adoption which was on September 26, 2018.

(4) Applications for siting of wireless facilities have grown dramatically among jurisdictions such as Santa Rosa, Hillsborough, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Rancho Palos Verdes, Monterey, Pacifica, Burlingame, and various other cities and counties located within the Bay Area as well as the State since small cell facilities became the most preferred option of wireless providers for wireless telecommunications facilities. Applications for siting of small cell facilities generally are submitted in batches for multiple locations at the same or substantially the same time and thus must all be reviewed and evaluated at the same time. The City last received applications for small cell facilities in a batch of more than ten separate applications for more than ten separate locations within the City which were all submitted on one date.

(5) The Order provides that the trend toward small cell technology to deploy 5G and other next-generation wireless services requires greater densification and pace of build out to enable

1 The Order defines small cell wireless facilities as meeting the following conditions: 1) satisfy one of the following- a)mounted on structures no higher than 50 feet (including antennae); b) mounted on structures no more than 10% taller than other adjacent structures; or c) not extend existing structures to a height of more than 50 feet or 10%, whichever is greater; 2) antenna is no greater than 3 cubic feet in volume; 3) all other wireless equipment associated with structure is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; 4) do not result in human exposure to RF radiation in excess of the FCC guidelines; 5) not located on Tribal lands; and 5) not require antenna registration. widespread deployment as is sought by the wireless industry. The Order states that as much as 80% of all new deployments will entail small cell technology going forward.

(6) The Order provides that wireless providers variably estimate that the preference towards small cell facilities will likely result in ten to one hundred times the number of wireless facilities existing in the nation, and estimates of the number of small cells nationwide would grow from 150,000 this year to nearly 800,000 by year 2026. Based on estimates of small cell facilities transmitting only a few hundred feet by some providers as stated by the Order, the number of small cells could grow to as many as 25-29 per provider per square mile within the City of Sonoma alone.

(7) The Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and accumulation of small cell facilities over a short period of time in order to enable deployment of technology that the Order claims will enable increased competition in healthcare, Internet of Things applications, life- saving car technologies and create jobs, possibly increasing the U.S. economy by as much as $100 billion by speeding up the deployment of small cells by only one year. The Order reduces the “shot clock” period allowable to cities to review, comment upon, consider, and make a final determination on small cells applications for as many as 90 days for new facilities and as many as 30 days for collocated and modified facilities.

(8) Small cell wireless facilities are primarily installed within public rights-of-way and as such create significant and far-reaching local concerns in traffic and pedestrian safety, aesthetics, protection and preservation of public property, and the health, safety and welfare of the general public.

(9) Installation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way can pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless facilities; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; impacts to trees where proximity conflicts may require unnecessary trimming of branches or require removal of roots due to related undergrounding of equipment or connection lines; land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height or poles and towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on collocation opportunities which may negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City.

(10) The City currently regulates wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of- way through its telecommunications ordinance which does not focus specifically on wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way and the encroachment permit process. The existing standards have not been updated to reflect the development of current wireless telecommunications technologies, such as small cell wireless facilities and DAS systems (Distributed Antenna Systems) which are now the preferred method of providing wireless telecommunications services or necessary legal requirements for such preferred methods and wireless telecommunications facilities covered under Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, among other federal and state law requirements now applicable to local agencies. Further the primary focus of the existing telecommunications facilities regulations in the Sonoma Municipal Code is wireless telecommunications facilities located on private property, and the existing Code provisions were not specifically designed to address the unique legal and practical issues that arise in connection with wireless telecommunications facilities deployed in the public right-of-way. (11) The lack of regulations that are specific to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way combined with the Order’s regulations to hasten the spread and development of small cell facilities would, if continued, jeopardize the health and safety of the public by allowing applications for small cell facilities to be submitted and subject to limited local siting regulations resulting from the implementation of the Order. There would not be sufficient time for the City to develop regulations specific to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way before such applications would be made. Yet, under the new “shot clock” rules such applications would need to be approved within either 60 or 90 days of the application being submitted. Any requirements that were placed into effect by the regulations being developed by the City could not be applied to the application before such application would be approved under the new “shot clock” rules. Such a state of affairs would result in facilities being approved that are inconsistent with appropriate regulations being developed by the City in order to exercise the degree of local authority within the parameters allowable under the Order. Thus, projects would be applied for and approved by law without local authority being properly, appropriately, and within the confines of federal and state laws exercised by the City which would in turn result in potentially numerous wireless telecommunications facilities being constructed and existing without local controls for as long as the life of the facility.

(12) The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance telephone service.

(13) The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is primarily responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition and the CPUC issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related telecommunications service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations.

(14) Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a "telephone corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state."

(15) Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a telephone corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its telephone line."

(16) Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets.

(17) Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters.

(18) Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner, and may involve the imposition of fees. (19) Section 50030 of the California Government Code provides that any permit fee imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide telecommunications services, must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for general revenue purposes.

(20) State and federal law have changed substantially since the City last adopted regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities in the City. Such changes include modifications to "shot clocks" whereby the City must approve or deny installations within a certain period of time. State and federal laws require local governments to act on permit applications for wireless facilities within a prescribed time period and may automatically deem an application approved when a failure to act occurs. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.40001 et seq.; Cal. Gov't Code § 65964.1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may require a decision on certain applications in as few as 60 days. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(c)(2); see also In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Red. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014) [hereinafter "2014 Report and Order"]; In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(cl(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Red. 13994 (Nov. 18, 2009) [hereinafter "2009 Declaratory Ruling"]. Pursuant to FCC regulations, the City cannot adopt a moratorium ordinance to toll the time period for review for certain type of facilities, even when needed to allow the City to maintain the status quo while it reviews and revises its policies for compliance with changes in state or federal law. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(c)(3); 2014 Report and Order, 29 FCC Red. at 219, 265. The City is in immediate need of clear regulations for wireless installations in the public right-of-way given the number of anticipated applications and legal timelines upon which the City must act.

(21) The public right-of-way in the City is a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked with the City's historical, unique small-town character, as well as, its attractiveness for tourists, members of the business community, and residents alike. The reasonably regulated and orderly deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community.

(22) The regulations of wireless installations in the public right-of-way are necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community, as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible.

(23) The City finds that in light of more recent developments in federal and state law with respect to the regulation of small cell and other wireless telecommunications facilities, there is a need for the City to update its current ordinances based on current telecommunications trends, updates in laws, as well as aesthetic and location options for wireless facilities. The City Council also finds that the lack of specifically-designed standards and regulations in the Municipal Code for wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way, the increasing requests for information about the City's regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities, the inability to adopt a temporary moratorium, and the potential liabilities and negative consequences for noncompliance with state and federal regulations (including, without limitation, automatic approvals) present current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council further finds and declares that the immediate implementation of the Ordinance is necessary to preserve and protect public health, safety and welfare.

(24) The City recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare. The City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications service; rather, but includes appropriate regulations to ensure that the installation, augmentation and relocation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code while, at the same time, protect to the full extent feasible against the safety and land use concerns described herein.

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.

WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan provides goals, policies and implementation measures to preserve the high-quality design, scale, unique historical small-town character, aesthetics, scenic vistas, natural setting and resources, and environmental characteristics while also maintaining a strong and vibrant healthy economy for its local business and assuring the health and safety of the predominantly residential character of the community. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide uniform and comprehensive regulations and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities in furtherance of these goals and objectives while reducing the potentially negative impacts.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Sonoma City Council does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and represent the findings of the City Council of the City of Sonoma, made in the exercise of its independent judgment. Said findings are incorporated by this reference.

Section 2. The Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

A. A new Chapter 5.30, entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" is hereby added to Title 5 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein.

Section 3. All references to Chapter 5.32 within Title 19 of this Municipal Code, including those within Tables 2-1 through 2-4, shall refer to Chapter 5.30 instead and the terms of Chapter 5.30 shall dictate whether wireless telecommunications facilities subject to this chapter are permitted within the district being referenced by that provision, except that where section 5.30.030(A)(2) is applicable or Chapter 5.30 does not apply by its own terms (such as in the case of applications that have been submitted and are neither stayed nor suspended as of the effective date of this ordinance) Chapter 5.32 shall continue to dictate whether those wireless telecommunications facilities are permitted within the district being referenced by that provision, unless otherwise provided herein.

Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that Adoption of this Ordinance will enact only minor changes in land use regulations, and it can be seen with certainty that its adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment because it will not allow for the development of any new or expanded wireless telecommunication facilities anywhere other than where they were previously allowed under existing federal, state and local regulations. The wireless facilities themselves are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, which exempts existing facilities where there is negligible or no expansion of an existing use, Section 15303, which exempts the installation of new, small equipment and facilities in small structures and Section 15305, which exempts minor encroachment permits. The proposed Ordinance also falls within the "common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment."

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation.

Section 6. Notice. The City clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be posted within 15 days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code.

Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety within the meaning of Government Code Section 36937(b) and therefore shall be passed immediately upon its introduction and shall become effective immediately, and shall be published in accordance with applicable provisions of law by publishing the entire Ordinance once in the Sonoma Index Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Sonoma, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption.

INTRODUCED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma on this 5th day of November 2018, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

______Madolyn Agrimonti, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk

Exhibit A URGENCY ORDINANCE

Chapter 5.30 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

5.30.010 Purpose

A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of regulations and standards for the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Sonoma. These regulations are intended to prescribe clear and reasonable criteria to assess and process applications in a consistent and expeditious manner, while reducing the impacts associated with wireless telecommunications facilities. This chapter provides standards necessary to: (1) preserve and promote harmonious land uses and the public right-of-way in the City; (2) promote and protect public health and safety, community welfare, visual resources, and the aesthetic quality of the City consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan; (3) provide for the orderly, managed, and efficient development of wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with the state and federal laws, rules, and regulations; and (4) encourage new and more efficient technology in the provision of wireless telecommunications facilities.

B. This chapter is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit any personal wireless service provider's ability to provide personal wireless services; (2) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity's ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules or regulation for rights-of-way management; (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (4) deny any request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such wireless facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions; (5) prohibit any collocation or modification that the City may not deny under federal or state law; or (6) otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal or state law.

5.30.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following defined terms shall have the meaning set forth in this section unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

A. "Accessory Equipment" means any equipment associated with the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, including but not limited to cabling, generators, air conditioning units, electrical panels, equipment shelters, equipment cabinets, equipment buildings, pedestals, meters, vaults, splice boxes, and surface location markers.

B. "Antenna" means that part of a wireless telecommunications facility designed to radiate or receive radio frequency signals or electromagnetic waves for the provision of services, including, but not limited to, cellular, paging, personal communications services (PCS) and microwave communications. Such devices include, but are not limited to, directional antennas, such as panel antenna, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes; omnidirectional antennas; wireless access points (Wi-Fi); and strand-mounted wireless access points. This definition does not apply to broadcast antennas, antennas designed for amateur radio use, or satellite dishes designed for residential or household purposes.

C. "Base Station" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(l), as may be amended, which defines that term as a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC- licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(9) or any equipment associated with a tower. The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks). The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(l)(i)-(ii) that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(l)(i)-(ii).

D. "Building-mounted" means mounted to the side or facade, but not the roof, of a building or another structure such as a water tank, pump station, church steeple, freestanding sign, or similar structure.

E. "Cellular" means an analog or digital wireless telecommunications technology that is based on a system of interconnected neighboring cell sites.

F. "Collocation" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(2), as may be amended, which defines that term as the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. As an illustration and not a limitation, the FCC's definition effectively means "to add" and does not necessarily refer to more than one wireless telecommunication facility installed at a single site.

G. "Eligible Facilities Request" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(3), as may be amended, which defines that term as any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment. H. "Eligible Support Structure" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(4), as may be amended, which defines that term as any tower or base station as defined in this section, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section.

I. "Existing" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(4), as may be amended, which provides that a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of the FCC's Section 6409(a) regulations if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.

J. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or its duly appointed successor agency.

K. "Modification" means any change to an existing wireless telecommunications facility that involves any of the following: collocation, expansion, modification, alteration, enlargement, intensification, reduction, or augmentation, including, but not limited to, a change in size, shape, color, visual design, or exterior material. Modification does not include repair, replacement, or maintenance if those actions do not involve a change to the existing facility involving any of the following: collocation, expansion, modification, alteration, enlargement, intensification, reduction, or augmentation.

L. "Monopole" means a structure consisting of a single pole used to support antennas or related equipment and includes a mono pine, monored wood, and similar monopoles camouflaged to resemble trees or other objects.

M. "Personal Wireless Services" means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i), as may be amended, which defines the term as commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange access services.

N. "Personal Wireless Service Facilities" means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(i), as may be amended, which defines the term as facilities that provide personal wireless services.

O. "Planning director" means the City planning director or the City planning director's designee.

P. "Pole" means a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete, or other material capable of supporting the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and as required by provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code. “Pole” does not include a City- owned pole with one or more streetlights and related equipment mounted on it that is solely operated by the City.

Q. "Public Right-of-Way or "Right-of-Way" means any public street, public way, public alley or public place, laid out or dedicated, and the space on, above or below it, and all extensions thereof, and additions thereto, under the jurisdiction of the City. R. "Reviewing Authority" means the person or body who has the authority to review and either grant or deny a wireless telecommunications facility permit pursuant to this chapter.

S. "RF" means radio frequency or electromagnetic waves between 30 kHz and 300 GHz in the electromagnetic spectrum range.

T. "Roof-mounted" means mounted directly on the roof of any building or structure, above the eave line of such building or structure.

U. "Section 6409(a)" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), as such law may be amended from time to time.

V. "Section 6409(a) Approval" means the approval required by Section 6409(a).

W. "Site" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(6), as may be amended, which provides that for towers other than towers in the public rights- of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.

X. "Substantial Change" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §1.40001(b)(7), as may be amended, which defines that term differently based on the particular wireless facility type (tower or base station) and location (in or outside the public right-of-way). For clarity, this definition organizes the FCC's criteria and thresholds for a substantial change according to the wireless facility type and location.

1. For towers outside the public rights-of-way, a substantial change occurs when: a) the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% or the height of one additional antenna array not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater); or b) the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 20 feet from the edge of the wireless tower or the width of the wireless tower at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or c) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four; or d) the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, including any access or utility easements currently related to the site.

2. For towers in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when: a) the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or b) the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 6 feet from the edge of the wireless tower or base station; or c) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or d) the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground- mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent (10%) larger in height or volume than any existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or e) the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.

3. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when: a) the proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the support structure as determined by the planning director; or the proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval, provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this section.

The thresholds for a substantial change outlined above are disjunctive. The failure to meet any one or more of the applicable thresholds means that a substantial change would occur. The thresholds for height increases are cumulative limits. For sites with horizontally separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the originally-permitted support structure without regard to any increases in size due to wireless equipment not included in the original design. For sites with vertically separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the permitted site dimensions as they existed on February 22, 2012-the date that Congress passed Section 6409(a).

Y. "Telecommunications Tower" or "Tower" means a freestanding mast, pole, monopole, guyed tower, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structure designed and primarily used to support wireless telecommunications facility antennas.

Z. "Transmission Equipment" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §1.40001(b)(8), as may be amended, which defines that term as equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. AA. "Utility Pole" means a pole or tower owned by any utility company that is primarily used to support wires or cables necessary to the provision of electrical or other utility services regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

BB. "Wireless Services" means any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service transmitted over frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.

CC. "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" or “Facility” means any facility constructed, installed, or operated for wireless service. "Wireless telecommunications facility" or “Facility” includes, but is not limited to, antennas or other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, telecommunications towers or similar structures supporting such equipment, related accessory equipment, equipment buildings, parking areas, and other accessory development. "Wireless telecommunications facility" or “Facility” does not mean any of the following:

1. A facility that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, of the Commission's Rules, or its successor regulation.

2. An antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or any successor regulation, including, but not limited to, direct- to- home satellite dishes that are less than one meter in diameter, TV antennas used to receive television broadcast signals and wireless cable antennas.

3. Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio, and other similar portable devices as determined by the planning director.

4. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any government agency.

5. Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any emergency medical care provider.

6. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature.

7. Any wireless telecommunications facilities exempted from the Sonoma Municipal Code by federal law or state law.

5.30.030 Applicability

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 5.32, this chapter applies to all wireless telecommunications facilities as follows:

1. All facilities for which applications are submitted after the effective date of this chapter shall be subject to and comply with all provisions of this chapter. 2. All facilities for which applications have been stayed or suspended as of the effective date of this chapter, except as to any provisions which, if applied, would result in any of the conditions set forth within Section 5.30.010(B).

3. All facilities, notwithstanding the date approved, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter governing the operation and maintenance, cessation of use and abandonment, removal and restoration of wireless telecommunications facilities and wireless telecommunications collocation facilities and the prohibition of dangerous conditions or obstructions by such facilities; provided, however, that in the event a condition of approval conflicts with a provision of this chapter, the condition of approval shall control unless and until the permit is amended or revoked.

4. Additionally, all facilities, notwithstanding the date of the application, shall be subject to the appeal provisions of this chapter for any determination made by the Planning Commission on a use permit subsequent to the effective date of this chapter.

B. Titles 5 and 19, including but not limited to this chapter 5.30 and Tables 2-1 through 2-4 in Title 19, shall not apply to a wireless telecommunications facility on property that is owned by the City.

C. Notwithstanding any provision of the Sonoma Municipal Code to the contrary, provisions governing the installation of a public utility facility or accessory equipment shall not apply to wireless telecommunications facilities. This chapter 5.30 shall govern all applications for wireless telecommunications facilities in accordance with this section.

5.30.040 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Required

A. Use Permit required. A use permit shall be required to locate or modify any wireless telecommunications facility in any zone within the City, including the public right-of-way, subject to the following exceptions: 1) no wireless telecommunications facility shall be permitted within a residential district, or the Plaza Retail Overlay Zone (SMC Section 19.10.030(C)(4)); 2) any application made under Section 6409(a) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.30.130 of this Chapter; 3) no use permit shall be required for any wireless telecommunications facility to be located or modified on property belonging to the City. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located or modified within the City on any property, including the public right-of-way, without the issuance of a permit as required by this chapter. The use permit procedures in Section 19.54.040 of this Code shall be applicable to use permits under this chapter. Such permit shall be in addition to any other permit required pursuant to the Sonoma Municipal Code, including encroachment permits that may be required under Chapter 12.20.

B. Non-exclusive grant. No approval granted under this chapter shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license, or franchise to occupy or use the public right-of-way of the City for delivery of telecommunications services or any other purposes. Further, no approval shall be construed as any warranty of title. 5.30.050 Application for Permit

A. Application content. All applications for a permit required by this chapter and all required submittals must be made in writing by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized agent on such form as the planning director may prescribe, which shall include the following information, in addition to all other information determined necessary by the planning director as well as all other information required by the City as part of an application for a conditional use permit:

1. Full name and contact information for the facility owner, facility operator, agent (if any), and property owner, and related letter(s) of authorization of facility and/or property owner.

2. The type of facility, including a full written description of the proposed facility, its purpose and specifications.

3. A detailed site and engineering plan of the proposed facility containing the exact proposed location of the facility, created by a qualified licensed engineer and in accordance with requirements set by the planning director.

4. Photographs of facility equipment and an accurate visual impact analysis with photo simulations, including reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets or other adjacent viewpoints, and a map that shows the photo location of each view angle.

5. Building elevations and roof plan (for building- and/or rooftop-mounted facilities) indicating exact location and dimensions of equipment proposed. For freestanding facilities, indicate surrounding grades, structures, and landscaping from all sides.

6. Proposed landscaping and/or nonvegetative screening (including required safety fencing) plan for all aspects of the facility.

7. Written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort to locate the proposed facility in the least intrusive location and screened to the greatest extent feasible in accordance with the site selection and visual impact criteria of this Chapter.

8. If the application is for a facility that will be located within the public right-of-way, the applicant shall certify that it is a telephone corporation or state the basis for its claimed right to enter the right-of-way, and provide a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), if a CPCN has been issued by the California Public Utilities Commission.

9. A written description identifying the geographic service area for the subject installation, accompanied by a plan and maps showing anticipated future installations and modifications for the following two years, in addition to the master plan described by this section.

10. A written report that analyzes acoustic levels for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and all associated equipment including without limitation all environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators, and permanent backup power generators in order to demonstrate compliance with chapter 9.56 (Noise). The acoustic analysis must be prepared and certified by an engineer and include an analysis of the manufacturers' specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the noise contours for the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines. In lieu of a written report, the applicant may submit evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted from all the proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits.

11. If the applicant claims it requires an exception to the requirements of this chapter, all information and studies necessary for the City to evaluate that claim.

12. An application and processing fee, or (if already established) an advance reimbursable deposit in a maximum amount to be established by resolution of the City Council for the estimated cost of the City, including staff time, a consultant review as set forth in paragraph (B) of this section, other legal and third party services, and all other costs of whatever type or variety, incurred for the processing, review, commenting upon, evaluation, hearing, and consideration of the application. The planning director shall establish a reasonable deposit amount for each application that is no greater than the maximum established by the city council in accordance with this provision. In addition, the applicant shall submit a fully executed cost recovery agreement in the form provided by the City wherein the applicant agrees to replenish the deposited amount in full and fully reimburse the City otherwise where the advance deposit is insufficient to cover all of the City’s costs related to the application. Where the advance deposit is insufficient to pay for the costs incurred by the City, the planning director shall invoice the applicant who shall pay the invoice in full within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the invoice. No permit shall be issued to an applicant where that applicant has not timely paid a required fee, provided any required deposit or paid any invoice as required by this Code. A “reasonable deposit” under this paragraph shall take into consideration the scope and scale of the proposal being made by the application, the City’s prior costs incurred with like or similar applications, and whether one or more exceptions are being requested by the applicant. Any portion of the deposit that is not expended by the City shall be reimbursed to the applicant upon the completion of the application and determination process.

13. An agreement in the form provided by the City that applicant agrees to defend, hold harmless and fully indemnify City, its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers, from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City or its officers, employees, agents, or attorneys to attack, set aside, void, or annul any such approval of the City; and/or (b) an action taken to provide environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or City Council. This indemnification agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The agreement shall also include a provision obligating the applicant to indemnify the City for all of the City’s costs, fees and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions of this Section. Also at the time of submitting an application, the applicant shall agree, as part of the application, to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, employees and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (such as an EIR, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, or General Plan Amendment) if made necessary by said proceeding and if the applicant desires to pursue securing such approvals and/or clearances, after initiation of the proceeding, which are conditioned on the approval of these documents. In the event that a proceeding described by this section is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of the existence of the proceeding and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of the proceeding. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any proceeding. In the event that the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any proceeding described in this section, the City shall retain the right to approve: (a) the counsel to so defend the City; (b) all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and (c) any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

14. A master plan which identifies the location of the proposed facility in relation to all existing and potential locations in the city that are reasonably anticipated for construction within two years of submittal of the application. Applicants may not file, and the City shall not accept, applications that are not consistent with the master plan for a period of two years from approval of a wireless facility use permit unless: (a) the applicant demonstrates materially changed conditions which could not have been reasonably anticipated to justify the need for a wireless telecommunications facility site not shown on a master plan submitted to the City within the prior two years; (b) the applicant establishes that the application is needed to prevent the actual or effective prohibition of the provision of telecommunications wireless services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996; or (c) the applicant includes all of the documentation necessary to request an exception under Section 5.30.120.

15. A siting analysis which identifies a minimum of five other feasible locations within or outside the City which could serve the area intended to be served by the facility, unless the applicant provides compelling technical reasons for fewer than the minimum. The alternative site analysis should include at least one collocation site, if feasible.

16. Any request for exceptions to be made to the provisions of this Code pursuant to Section 5.30.120 shall be submitted at the time of the application. The request shall include an analysis as to the availability and feasibility of other alternatives to the exception(s) that are being requested and a description of the need for the exception and analysis of how the need would be met by the exception being requested.

17. An RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer licensed by the State of California that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any collocated facilities, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. The RF report must include the actual frequency and power levels (in watts effective radio power (ERP)) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site and exhibits and show the location and orientation of all transmitting antennas and the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general population limit (as that term is defined by the FCC) and also limit (as that term is defined by the FCC). Each such boundary shall be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site. 18. Every applicant applying for authorization to construct, modify, or remove a wireless communications facility located on private or public property must include with its application a written authorization signed by the property owner.

19. Any other studies or information as determined to be necessary by the planning director in order to consider an application for a wireless telecommunications facility may be required.

20. In addition to any other action otherwise required by law pertaining to the process of a conditional wireless facility permit application that requires planning commission review, the applicant for which such review is being sought shall take all of the following actions:

(a) Send written notice to both the owner(s) of real property, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll, within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, and the city planning department, of the pendency of the filing of such an application, including with such notice copies of preliminary drawings of the proposed project at a scale no smaller than one inch equals sixteen feet. No application for neighborhood review will be accepted as complete unless it contains evidence acceptable to the director that such notice has been sent or such determination would otherwise be in conflict with federal or state law.

(b) Hold a community meeting at least two weeks before the date of the planning commission meeting at which the application will be heard, and invite the persons entitled to notice pursuant to subparagraph (a) to attend such meeting to discuss the proposed application. The community meeting shall be held at a location within the City. One meeting that includes all of the applications submitted on the same day shall be sufficient to satisfy this paragraph. The mock-up of the proposed project shall be erected at the subject site before the meeting. The primary location and all alternative sites shall be presented to the community as well as the reasons for the selection of the primary location. Notice of the date, time and place of such meeting shall be sent at least seven (7) days before the meeting and shall be filed with the planning department.

(c) If the hearing on the application is continued by the planning commission, the applicant is encouraged, but not required, to hold a further meeting with the persons entitled to notice pursuant to subparagraph (a) at least one week prior to the continued hearing.

(d) If a meeting pursuant to subparagraph (b) results in any modifications to the project prior to the planning commission hearing on the project, the applicant shall (1) notify the director of the proposed modifications, and (2) explain to the planning commission at the hearing on the matter any discrepancy between the project as proposed in the notice sent pursuant to subparagraph (a) and the project as presented to the planning commission.

A community meeting may be required at the discretion of the director for an application for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility under Section 5.30.140 or an eligible facility permit under Section 5.30.130. 21. All submittals required for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility under Section 5.30.140(D).

22. In the event a subsequent state or federal law prohibits the collection of any information described herein, the director is authorized to omit, modify, or add to that request from the City’s application form.

B. Independent expert.

1. The planning director is authorized to retain on behalf of the City any one or more independent, qualified consultants to review any application for a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility to review the technical aspects of the application, including but not limited to the following matters:

(a) The accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of submissions,

(b) Compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards,

(c) Whether any requested exception is necessary to avoid actual or effective prohibition of provision of wireless telecommunications services or use of the public right-of-way on a non- discriminatory basis, which may include a determination as to whether the requested exception would close a significant gap in coverage and is the least intrusive means of doing so.

(d) Technical demonstration of the unavailability of alternative sites, facility designs or configurations, and coverage analysis, and

(e) The applicability, reliability and sufficiency of analyses or methodologies used by the applicant and the validity of conclusions reached or claims made by applicant.

(f) Any other application issue or element that requires expert or specialized knowledge.

2. The applicant must pay for the cost of any review required under this section and for the technical consultant’s testimony in any hearing as requested by the director and must provide a reasonable advance deposit of the estimated cost of such review with the city prior to the commencement of any work. The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant through a deposit and cost recovery agreement pursuant to the application requirements stated within subsection A above.

5.30.055 Notice of hearing

Notwithstanding the notice of hearing provisions in Section 19.88.020, notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission or an appeal of a Planning Commission determination before the City Council of a use permit shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailed or delivered in accordance with Section 19.88.020 no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing.

5.30.060 Design and Development Standards for All Facilities A. Basic requirements. The design and development standards set forth in this section apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities no matter where they are located. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed and maintained so as to minimize visual, noise, and other impacts on the surrounding community and shall be planned, designed, located, and erected in accordance with the design and development standards in this section.

B. No speculative facilities. A wireless telecommunications facility, wireless telecommunications collocation facility, or a telecommunications tower, which is built on speculation and for which there is no wireless tenant is prohibited within the City.

C. General guidelines. The applicant shall employ screening and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually inconspicuous as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to hide the facility from predominant views from surrounding properties, all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community.

D. Traffic safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety.

E. Antennas. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas possible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent reasonably feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Antennas shall be situated as to reduce visual impact without compromising their function. Whip antennas need not be screened.

F. Landscaping. Where appropriate, facilities shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for screening. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained where such vegetation is deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to block the line of sight between facilities and adjacent uses.

G. Signage. Wireless telecommunications facilities and wireless telecommunications collocation facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the City.

H. Lighting. No wireless telecommunications facility may be illuminated unless either specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency or in association with the illumination of an athletic field on City or school property. Lightning arresters and beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating the height of facilities such as telecommunications towers, lattice towers, and monopoles.

I. Noise. 1. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise.

2. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

3. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed 65 dbA intermittent or 55 dbA constant (Ldn or CNEL) for installations within the public right of way or an exterior noise level of 60 Ldn 50 dbA at the facility's property line if the facility is located within 100 feet of a residential dwelling unit or in excess of the applicable level established under Chapter 9.56 (Noise) if not located within 100 feet of a residential dwelling.

4. Any equipment, including but not limited to air conditioning units, that may emit noise that would be audible from beyond three feet from the facility in the case of a facility located in the right-of-way, or in the case of other facilities the facility's property line, shall be enclosed or equipped with noise attenuation devices to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with applicable noise limitations under the Sonoma Municipal Code.

J. Security. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The reviewing authority may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance.

K. Modification. At the time of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise, and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.

L. Pole standards. All poles, and equipment attached or mounted to poles shall comply with the standards approved by the City Engineer for poles and equipment placed within the public right-of-way, in addition to all other applicable requirements of Chapter 12.20 and this Chapter. No poles or equipment attached or mounted to poles within a public right-of-way shall be installed without an encroachment permit issued under Chapter 12.20.

5.30.070 Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities Outside the Public Right- of-Way

A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located outside the public right-of-way are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in addition to all design and development standards that apply to all facilities. B. No parking interference. In no event shall the installation of facilities replace or interfere with parking spaces in such a way as to reduce the total number of parking spaces below the number that is required.

C. Roof-mounted facilities. Roof-mounted facilities shall be designed and constructed to be fully concealed or screened in a manner compatible with the existing architecture of the building the facility is mounted to in color, texture, and type of material. Screening shall not increase the bulk of the structure nor alter the character of the structure.

D. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall be located in close proximity to existing above-ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or under grounding for at least 18 months after the date of application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas where they will not detract from the appearance of the City.

1. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, including, but not limited to, the attached antennas, shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to adequately support the proposed facility and meet FCC requirements. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the planning director establishing compliance with this paragraph. In any event, facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in the applicable zoning district.

2. Aside from the antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the telecommunications tower and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible without jeopardizing the physical integrity of the tower.

3. Monopole installations shall be situated so as to utilize existing natural or man- made features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening.

4. All antenna components and accessory wireless equipment shall be treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture to match the predominant visual background or existing architectural elements so as to visually blend in with the surrounding development. Subdued colors and non-reflective materials that blend with surrounding materials and colors shall be used.

5. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.

6. If a faux tree is proposed for the monopole installation, it shall be of a type of tree compatible with those existing in the immediate areas of the installation. If no trees exist within the immediate areas, the applicant shall create a landscape setting that integrates the faux tree with added species of a similar height and type. Additional camouflage of the faux tree may be required depending on the type and design of faux tree proposed. 7. Wireless telecommunications facilities requiring permits under this chapter shall not be located within any required yard setback area of the zoning district in which they are located with the exception of possible encroachment of the antenna array into airspace over said setback.

E. Accessory equipment. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of any wireless telecommunications facility shall be fully screened or camouflaged, and located in a manner to minimize their visibility to the greatest extent possible utilizing the following methods for the type of installation:

1. Accessory equipment for roof-mounted facilities shall be installed inside the building to which it is mounted or underground, if feasible. If not feasible, such accessory equipment may be located on the roof of the building that the facility is mounted on, provided that both the equipment and screening materials are painted the color of the building, roof, or surroundings. All screening materials for roof-mounted facilities shall be of a quality and design that is architecturally integrated with the design of the building or structure.

2. To preserve community aesthetics, all accessory equipment, excluding antennas, aboveground vents and the smallest possible electrical meter boxes, shall, to the greatest extent possible, be required to be located underground, flush to the finished grade, shall be fully enclosed, and not cross property lines. Equipment may include, but is not limited to, the following: meter pedestals, fiber optic nodes, radio remote units or heads, power filters, cables, cabinets, vaults, junction or power boxes, and gas generators. Wherever possible, electrical meter boxes related to wireless communications facilities shall be appropriately screened, not visible to the general public, and located in less prominent areas on public property and private property. Where it can be demonstrated that undergrounding of equipment is infeasible due to conflict with other utilities the reviewing authority may approve alternative above-grade equipment mounting when adequately screened in accordance with the following: facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower shall be visually screened by locating the equipment either within a nearby building, in an underground vault (with the exception of required electrical panels) or in another type of enclosed structure, which shall comply with the development and design standards of the zoning district in which the accessory equipment is located. Such enclosed structure shall be architecturally treated and adequately screened from view by landscape plantings, decorative walls, fencing or other appropriate means, selected so that the resulting screening will be visually integrated with the architecture and landscaping of the surroundings.

5.30.080 Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way

A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located in the public right-of-way are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in addition to all design and development standards that apply to all facilities.

B. Right-of-way authority. An encroachment permit under Chapter 12.20 must be obtained for any work in the public right of way. Only applicants authorized to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law or a franchise or other agreement with the City shall be eligible for a permit to install or modify a wireless telecommunications facility in the public right-of-way.

C. Antennas.

1. Utility poles. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to an existing utility pole shall not exceed 24 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface. All installations on utility poles shall fully comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as revised.

D. Poles.

1. Only pole-mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not replacing an existing pole.

2. Pole height and width limitations:

(a) All poles shall be designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to support the proposed antenna installation and meet FCC requirements. Poles and antennas and similar structures shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.

(b) Notwithstanding the above, no facility shall be located on a pole that is less than 26 feet in height and no facility shall exceed 35 feet in height, including, but not limited to the pole and any antenna that protrudes above the pole. (c) Pole mounted equipment shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension.

3. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate the facility, the pole shall match the appearance of the original pole to the extent feasible, unless another design better accomplishes the objectives of this section. Such replacement pole shall not exceed the height of the pole it is replacing by more than seven feet.

4. If an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the right-of-way, new poles shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the right-of-way, including size, height, color, materials and style, with the exception of any existing pole designs that are scheduled to be removed and not replaced, unless another design better accomplishes the objectives of this section. Such new poles that are not replacement poles shall be located no closer than 90 feet to an existing pole.

E. Space occupied. Facilities shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right- of-way that is technically feasible.

F. Location. 1. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists.

2. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to fire hydrants, fire stations, fire escapes, water valves, underground vaults, valve housing structures, or any other vital public health and safety facility.

3. Each pole mounted wireless telecommunications facility must be separated by at least 1,500 feet.

4. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, between the pole and any accessory equipment shall be placed underground, if not infeasible as described within subsection H.

5. All new wires needed to service the wireless telecommunications facility must be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and height of the existing utility pole.

G. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. All facilities shall be built in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

H. Accessory equipment. To preserve community aesthetics, all accessory equipment (with the exception of the smallest possible electrical meter boxes and any other equipment that may not be so placed) shall be placed within an underground vault whenever there are no physical or site constraints to make an underground vault infeasible, except as may be determined by the reviewing authority, Equipment which may not be placed in an underground vault shall be pole¬ mounted to the extent feasible. When above-ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory equipment and when such accessory equipment cannot be pole-mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total footprint of 15 square feet, and shall be screened and camouflaged to the fullest extent possible, including the use of landscaping or alternate screening. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be adequately screened and camouflaged. Infeasibility under this paragraph shall not be demonstrated by mere cost to construct an underground vault or place the equipment within the vault.

I. Documentation. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the planning director establishing compliance with this section 5.30.080.

5.30.090 Conditions of Approval for All Facilities

A. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this chapter, upon approval all facilities shall be subject to each of the following conditions of approval, as well as any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the reviewing authority: 1. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or other permits required by the Sonoma Municipal Code, the permittee must incorporate the wireless telecommunication facility permit granted under this chapter, all conditions associated with the wireless telecommunications facility permit and the approved plans and any photo simulations (the "Approved Plans") into the project plans. The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless telecommunications facility in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. The permittee shall submit an as built drawing within 90 days after installation of the facility.

2. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the permittee shall:

(a) place above-ground wireless telecommunications facilities below ground, including, but not limited to, accessory equipment that has been mounted to a telecommunications tower or mounted on the ground; and

(b) replace larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities, after receiving all necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to the Sonoma Municipal Code.

3. The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information on a form to be supplied by the City. The permittee shall notify the City of any changes to the information submitted within seven days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Identity, including the name, address and 24-hour local or toll-free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the agent or person responsible for the maintenance of the facility.

(b) The legal status of the owner of the wireless telecommunications facility, including official identification numbers and FCC certification.

(c) Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if different than the permittee.

4. The permittee shall not place any facilities that will deny access to, or otherwise interfere with, any public utility, easement, or right-of-way located on the site. The permittee shall allow the City reasonable access to, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing public improvements within or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to, pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting and public signage.

5. At all times, all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as required by the FCC and California Public Utilities Commission, and as approved by the City. The location and dimensions of a sign bearing the emergency contact name and telephone number shall be posted pursuant to the approved plans.

6. At all times, the permittee shall ensure that the facility complies with the most current regulatory and operational standards including, but not limited to, radio frequency emissions standards adopted by the FCC and antenna height standards adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration. 7. Every five years a technically sufficient written report certified by a qualified radio frequency emissions engineer, certifying that the facility follows the radio frequency emissions guidelines or standards of the FCC shall be submitted to the planning director. Additionally, if at any time while the permit is in effect the planning director determines there is good cause to believe that the facility may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed FCC standards, the planning director may require the permittee to submit a report described by this section. Failure to comply with this section shall be grounds for revocation of the use permit. The report shall also include an acoustical analysis that demonstrates compliance with the noise requirements herein and with the city’s Noise ordinance contained within Section 9.56 of the Sonoma Municipal Code.

8. Permittee shall pay for and provide a performance bond, which shall be in effect until the facilities are fully and completely removed and the site reasonably returned to its original condition, to cover permittee's obligations under these conditions of approval and the Sonoma Municipal Code. The bond coverage shall include, but not be limited to, removal of the facility, maintenance obligations and landscaping obligations. The amount of the performance bond shall be set by the planning director in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by the bond and shall be specified in the conditions of approval.

9. Indemnification shall be made a condition of approval and shall include the following responsibilities: Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, Planning Commission or City council concerning this permit and the project. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at permittee’s expense. The indemnification responsibilities in a condition of approval shall be at least as extensive as that set forth within Section 5.30.050(A) and shall also be inclusive of claims related to, connected with, or arising out of the construction, maintenance, operation, repair, alteration, or improvement of the wireless telecommunications facility if located within a public right-of-way.

10. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in interest to permittee.

11. A condition setting forth the permit expiration date in accordance with section 5.30.190 shall be included in the conditions of approval. 12. A condition setting forth the modification requirement stated within section 5.30.060(K).

5.30.100 Additional Conditions of Approval for Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way

A. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this chapter, upon approval all facilities in the public right-of-way shall be subject to each of the conditions of approval set forth in section 5.30.090, each of the following conditions of approval, and any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the reviewing authority:

1. The wireless telecommunications facility shall be subject to such conditions, changes or limitations as are from time to time deemed necessary by the City engineer for the purpose of: (a) protecting the public health, safety, and welfare, (b) preventing interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and (c) preventing damage to the public right-of-way or any property adjacent to it. The City may modify the permit to reflect such conditions, changes or limitations by following the same notice and public hearing procedures as are applicable to the grant of a wireless telecommunications facility permit for similarly located facilities, except the permittee shall be given notice by personal service or by registered or certified mail at the last address provided to the City by the permittee.

2. The permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any existing structure, improvement or property without the prior consent of the owner of that structure, improvement or property. No structure, improvement or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility unless the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or residents, and the permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the relocation of the City's structure, improvement or property. Prior to commencement of any work pursuant to an encroachment permit issued for any facility within the public right-of-way, the permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City's satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any other structure, improvement or property within the public right-of- way to be affected by applicant's facilities.

3. The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any property or person by the facility.

4. The permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including, but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support to City streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, street lights, traffic signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems, or sewer systems and sewer lines that result from any activities performed in connection with the installation or maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility in the public right-of-way. The permittee shall restore such areas, structures and systems to the condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated the repairs. In the event the permittee fails to complete such repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the planning director, the planning director shall cause such repair to be completed at permittee's sole cost and expense. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain the planning director's approval of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist if the installation of the wireless telecommunication facility will be located within the canopy of a street tree, or a protected tree on private property, or within a ten-foot radius of the base of such a tree. Depending on site specific criteria (e.g., location of tree, size, and type of tree, etc.), a radius greater than ten feet may be required by the planning director.

6. Should any utility company offer electrical service that does not require the use of a meter cabinet, the permittee shall at its sole cost and expense remove the meter cabinet and any related foundation within 30 days of such service being offered and reasonably restore the area to its prior condition.

7. The permittee shall modify, remove, or relocate its facility, or portion thereof, without cost or expense to City, if and when made necessary by: a) Any public improvement project, including, but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, or operation of any underground or aboveground facilities including but not limited to sewers, storm drains, conduits, gas, water, electric or other utility systems, or pipes owned by City or any other public agency; b) Any abandonment of any street, sidewalk, or other public facility; c) Any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility; or d) A determination by the planning director that the wireless telecommunications facility has become incompatible with public health, safety or welfare or the public's use of the public right-of-way.

8. Any modification, removal, or relocation of the facility shall be completed within 90 days of written notification by City unless exigencies dictate a shorter period for removal or relocation. Modification or relocation of the facility shall require submittal, review and approval of a permit amendment pursuant to the Sonoma Municipal Code. The permittee shall be entitled, on permittee's election, to either a pro-rata refund of fees paid for the original permit or to a new permit, without additional fee, at a location as close to the original location as the standards set forth in the Sonoma Municipal Code allow. In the event the facility is not modified, removed, or relocated within said period of time, the City may cause the same to be done at the sole cost and expense of permittee. Further, due to exigent circumstances as provided in the Sonoma Municipal Code, the City may modify, remove, or relocate wireless telecommunications facilities without prior notice to permittee provided permittee is notified within a reasonable period thereafter.

5.30.110 Findings

A. Where a wireless telecommunication facility requires a use permit under this chapter, the reviewing authority shall not approve any application unless, in addition to the findings generally applicable to all use permits, all of the following additional findings are made:

1. The proposed facility complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter.

2. The proposed facility has been designed and located to achieve compatibility with the community to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.

3. The applicant has submitted a statement of its willingness to allow other carriers to collocate on the proposed wireless telecommunications facility wherever technically and economically feasible and where collocation would not harm community compatibility.

4. Noise generated by equipment will not be excessive, annoying nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and will not exceed the standards set forth in this chapter.

B. In addition to the findings in paragraph (A) above, approval of a wireless telecommunications facility permit for a facility that will be located in the public right-of- way may be granted only if the following findings are made by the reviewing authority:

1. The applicant has provided substantial written evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise or other agreement with the City permitting them to use the public right-of-way.

2. The applicant has demonstrated that the facility will not interfere with the use of the public right-of-way, existing subterranean infrastructure, or the City's plans for modification or use of such location and infrastructure.

5.30.120 Exceptions

A. Exceptions pertaining to any provision of this chapter, including, but not limited to, exceptions from findings that would otherwise justify denial, may be granted by the reviewing authority if the reviewing authority makes the finding that:

1. Denial of the facility as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both; or

2. A provision of this chapter, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both.

B. An applicant may request an exception only at the time of applying for a wireless telecommunications facility permit and not at any time thereafter. The request must include both the specific provision(s) of this chapter from which the exception is sought and the basis of the request. Any request for an exception after the City has deemed an application complete shall be treated as a new application.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a use permit shall be required for a facility when an exception is requested. D. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that denial of the facility as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both, or that the provisions of this chapter, as applied to applicant, would deprive applicant of its rights under federal law, state law, or both, using the evidentiary standards required by that law at issue. The City shall have the right to hire one or more independent consultants, at the applicant's expense in accordance with the deposit and cost recovery agreement requirements of Section 5.30.050, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence to refute the applicant’s claim.

5.30.130 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Covered under Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012

A. Purpose. Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, codified in 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), generally requires that State and local governments “may not deny, and shall approve" requests to collocate, remove or replace transmission equipment at an existing tower or base station. Federal Communication Commission regulations interpret this statute and create procedural rules for local review, which generally preempt certain subjective land-use regulations, limit permit application content requirements and provide the applicant with a potential "deemed granted" remedy when the State or local government fails to approve or deny the request within sixty (60) days after submittal (accounting for any tolling periods). Moreover, whereas Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104- 104, codified in 47 U.S.C. § 332, applies to only "personal wireless service facilities" (e.g., cellular telephone towers and equipment), Section 6409(a) applies to all "wireless" facilities licensed or authorized by the FCC (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite, microwave backhaul, etc.).

The overlap between wireless deployments covered under Section 6409(a) and other wireless deployments, combined with the different substantive and procedural rules applicable to such deployments, creates a potential for confusion that harms the public interest in both efficient wireless facilities deployment and carefully planned community development in accordance with local values. A separate permit application and review process specifically designed for compliance with Section 6409(a) contained in a section devoted to Section 6409(a) will mitigate such potential confusion, streamline local review and preserve the City's land-use authority to the maximum extent possible.

B. Applicability. This Section applies to all collocations or modifications to an existing wireless tower or base station submitted with a written request for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a).

C. Approval Required. Any request to collocate, replace or remove transmission equipment at an existing wireless tower or base station submitted with a written request for a 6409(a) approval shall be subject to the planning director's approval, conditional approval or denial without prejudice pursuant to the standards and procedures contained in this chapter.

D. Other Regulatory Approvals. No collocation or modification approved under any section 6409(a) approval may occur unless the applicant also obtains all other applicable permits or regulatory approvals from the City and state or federal agencies. Furthermore, any section 6409(a) approval granted under this chapter shall remain subject to any and all lawful conditions or requirements associated with such other permits or regulatory approvals from the City and state or federal agencies.

E. Application Requirement. The City shall not approve any wireless facility subject to this chapter except upon a duly filed application consistent with this Section and any other written rules the City or the planning director may establish from time to time. An application must include the information required by Section 5.30.050 and the following additional information:

1. A title report prepared within the six months prior to the application filing date in order for the City to verify the property owner's identity. If the applicant does not own the subject property, the application must include a written authorization signed by the property owner that empowers the applicant to file the application and perform all wireless facility construction, installation, operation and maintenance to the extent described in the application.

2. A written statement that explains in plain factual detail whether and why Section 6409(a) and the related FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001 et seq. require approval for the specific project. A complete written narrative analysis will state the applicable standard and all the facts that allow the City to conclude the standard has been met. Bare conclusions not factually supported do not constitute a complete written analysis. As part of this written statement the applicant must also include (i) whether and why the support structure qualifies as an existing tower or existing base station; and (ii) whether and why the proposed collocation or modification does not cause a substantial change in height, width, excavation, equipment cabinets, concealment or permit compliance.

F. Procedures for a Duly Filed Application. The City shall not review any application unless duly filed in accordance with this Section, as follows:

1. Pre-Submittal Conference. Before application submittal, applicants must schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with the planning director for all proposed modifications submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a). The pre- submittal conference is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification, including whether the project qualifies for Section 6409(a); any latent issues in connection with the existing tower or base station; potential concealment issues (if applicable); coordination with other City departments responsible for application review; and application completeness issues. To mitigate unnecessary delays due to application incompleteness, applicants are encouraged (but not required) to bring any draft applications or other materials so that City staff may provide informal feedback about whether such applications or other materials may be incomplete or unacceptable. The planning director may, in the planning director's discretion, grant a written exemption to the submittal appointment under Section 5.30.130(F)(2) or for a specific requirement for a complete application to any applicant who (i) schedules, attends and fully participates in any pre- submittal conference and (ii) shows to the planning director's satisfaction that such specific requirement duplicates information already provided in other materials to be submitted or is otherwise unnecessary to the City's review under facts and circumstances in that particular case. Any written exemption will be limited to the project discussed at the pre-submittal conference and will not be extended to any other project.

2. Submittal Appointment. All applications must be filed with the City at a pre- scheduled appointment. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment, but may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. Any application received without an appointment, whether delivered in-person or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed unless the applicant received a written exemption from the planning director at a pre-submittal conference.

3. Appointment Scheduling Procedures. For any event in the submittal process that requires an appointment, applicants must submit a written request to the planning director. The planning director shall endeavor to provide applicants with an appointment as soon as reasonably feasible and within five business days after a written request is received.

4. Applications Deemed Withdrawn. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, an application will be automatically deemed withdrawn by the applicant when the applicant fails to tender a substantive response to the City within 90 calendar days after the City deems the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant. The planning director may, in the planning director's discretion, grant a written extension for up to an additional 30 calendar days when the applicant submits a written request prior to the 90th day that shows good cause to grant the extension. Delays due to circumstances outside the applicant's reasonable control will be considered good cause to grant the extension.

5. Departmental Forms, Rules and Other Regulations. The City council authorizes the planning director to develop and publish permit application forms, checklists, informational handouts and other related materials that the planning director finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing requests for section 6409(a) approvals. Without further authorization from the City council, the planning director may from time- to- time update and alter any such permit application forms, checklists, informational handouts and other related materials as the planning director deems necessary, appropriate or useful to respond to regulatory, technological or other changes related to this chapter. The City council authorizes the planning director to establish other reasonable rules and regulations, which may include without limitation regular hours for appointments with applicants, as the planning director deems necessary or appropriate to organize, document and manage the application intake process.

G. Administrative Review; Decision Notices. The planning director shall administratively review an application for a section 6409(a) approval and act on such an application without prior notice or a public hearing. Within five working days after the planning director conditionally approves or denies an application submitted for Section 6409(a) approval or before the FCC timeframe for review expires (whichever occurs first), the planning director shall send a written notice to the applicant. In the event that the planning director determines that an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) does not qualify for approval, the planning director will send written notice to the applicant that includes the reasons to support the review authority's decision and states that the application will be automatically denied without prejudice on the 60th day after the date the application was filed unless the applicant withdraws the application.

H. Required Findings for 6409(a) Approval. The planning director may approve or conditionally approve an application submitted for Section 6409(a) approval when the planning director finds that the proposed project:

1. Involves collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station; and

2. Does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station.

I. Criteria for Denial Without Prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this chapter, and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the planning director may deny without prejudice an application submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a) when it finds that the proposed project:

1. Does not satisfy the criteria for approval;

2. Violates any legally enforceable standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health and safety then in effect; or

3. Involves the replacement of the entire support structure.

J. Conditional 6409(a) Approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the City's authority to conditionally approve an application for a section 6409(a) approval to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare.

K. Appeals. Notwithstanding any provision of the Sonoma Municipal Code to the contrary, including but not limited to Chapter 19.84 and any other section of this Chapter, an applicant may appeal a decision by the planning director to deny without prejudice a Section 6409(a) application. The appeal must be filed within 10 days from the planning director's decision. The appeal must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The City Manager shall serve as the appellate authority for all appeals of all actions of the planning director taken pursuant to this section. The City shall provide notice for an administrative hearing by the City manager. The City Manager shall limit its review to whether the project should be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in paragraphs (H) and (I) of this section. The decision of the City manager shall be final and not subject to any further administrative appeals.

L. Standard Conditions of Approval. In addition to all other conditions adopted by the planning director, all Section 6409(a) approvals, whether approved by the planning director or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the following conditions in this Section; provided, however, that the planning director shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances: 1. Approved Plans. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or other permits required by the Sonoma Municipal Code, the permittee must incorporate the wireless telecommunications facility permit granted under this section, all conditions associated with the wireless telecommunications facility permit and the approved plans and any photo simulations (the "Approved Plans") into the project plans. The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless telecommunications facility in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. The permittee shall submit an as built drawing within 90 days after installation of the facility.

2. Permit Term. The City's grant or grant by operation of law of a Section 6409(a) approval constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station. The City's grant or grant by operation of law of a section 6409(a) approval will not extend the permit term, if any, for any conditional use permit, or other underlying prior regulatory authorization. Accordingly, the term for a section 6409(a) approval shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station.

3. Accelerated Permit Terms Due to Invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates any portion of Section 6409(a) or any FCC rule that interprets Section 6409(a) such that federal law would not mandate approval for any Section 6409(a) approval, such 6409(a) approvals shall automatically expire one year from the effective date of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated termination of previously approved section 6409(a) approvals or the planning director grants an extension upon written request from the permittee that shows good cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial hardship. Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the planning director may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee shall not be required to remove its improvements approved under the invalidated section 6409(a) approval when it has applied for a conditional use permit for those improvements before the one-year period ends.

4. No Waiver of Standing. The City's grant or grant by operation of law of a Section 6409(a) approval does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a), any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) or any section 6409(a) approval.

5. Build-out Period. The section 6409(a) approval will automatically expire one year from the issuance date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and operate the approved wireless facility, which includes without limitation any permits or approvals required by any federal, state or local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the wireless facility or its use. The planning director may grant one written extension to a date certain when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least 30 days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition. Any further extensions may be granted by the planning commission.

6. Maintenance Obligations; Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the Approved Plans and all conditions in this section 6409(a) approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred.

7. Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law ("Laws") applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the wireless facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this section 6409(a) approval. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee's obligations to maintain compliance with all Laws.

8. Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee's construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other activities at the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines on any day and at any time prohibited under the Sonoma Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City. The planning director may issue a stop work order for any work that violates this condition.

9. Noise Complaints. The permittee shall conduct all activities on the site in compliance with the noise standards in the Sonoma Municipal Code. In the event that any person files a noise complaint and the City verifies that such complaint is valid, the permittee must remedy the violation within 10 days after notice from the City, which may include a demonstration that the permittee has amended its operational guidelines in situations where the violation arises from the permittee's personnel rather than the permittee's equipment.

10. Inspections; Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City or its designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City or its designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City or its designee while such inspection or emergency access occurs.

11. Contact Information. The permittee shall furnish the City with accurate and up-to- date contact information for a person responsible for the wireless facility, which includes without limitation such person's full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times. 12. Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the property owner upon which the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all (1) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs and other actions or proceedings ("Claims") brought against the City or its agents, officers, officials, employees or volunteers to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the City's approval of this section 6409(a) approval, and (2) other Claims any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee's or its agents', directors', officers', employees', contractors', subcontractors', licensees', or customers' acts or omissions in connection with this section 6409(a) approval or the wireless facility. In the event the City becomes aware of any Claims, the City will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and the property owner or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee's indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that motivates the City to approve this section 6409(a) approval, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration or revocation of this section 6409(a) approval.

13. Performance Bond. Before the City issues any construction permit in connection with the wireless facility, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the City manager in an amount equal to or greater than a written estimate from a qualified contractor with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, which includes without limitation all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, mounts, brackets, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, footings and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed in connection with the wireless facility. In establishing or adjusting the bond amount required under this condition, and in accordance with California Government Code § 65964(a), the City manager shall take into consideration information provided by the permittee regarding the cost to remove the wireless facility.

14. Record Retention. The permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the wireless facility, which includes without limitation this approval, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval and any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the event that the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an inspection of the missing records will be construed against the permittee.

15. Compliance Obligations. An applicant or permittee will not be relieved of its obligation to comply with every applicable provision in the Sonoma Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation by reason of any failure by the City to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance by the applicant or permittee. 5.30.140 Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facilities Covered Under California Government Code Section 65850.6

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to comply with an application for a Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility under California Government Code Section 65850.6, for which a 6409(a) approval is not being requested. This section provides the requirements, standards and regulations for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility for which subsequent collocation is a permitted use pursuant to California law. Only those facilities that fully comply with the eligibility requirements set forth in California Government Code Section 65850.6, or its successor provision, and which strictly adhere to the requirements and regulations set forth in this section shall qualify as a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

B. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined as follows:

1. "Collocation Facility" means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

2. "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" means equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.

3. "Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility" means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.

C. Procedures. An application for a Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility under California Government Code Section 65850.6 shall be processed in the same manner as an application for 6409(a) approval is processed, except that where the process requires justification for the 6409(a) approval, the applicant shall instead provide the justification for a Wireless Telecommunications Collocation Facility under California Government Code Section 65850.6.

D. Requirements. All requirements, regulations, and standards set forth in this chapter for a wireless telecommunications facility shall apply to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; provided, however, the following shall also apply to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility:

1. The applicant for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit shall describe or depict:

(a) The wireless telecommunications collocation facility as it will be initially built; and

(b) All collocations at full build-out, including, but not limited to, all antennas, antenna support structures, and accessory equipment. 2. Any collocation shall use screening methods substantially similar to those used on the existing wireless telecommunications facilities unless other optional screening methods are specified in the conditions of approval.

3. A wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit shall not be approved unless an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration was prepared and approved for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

E. Permitted Use. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a subsequent collocation on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use only if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

1. The wireless telecommunications collocation facility:

(a) Was approved after January 1, 2007, by discretionary permit;

(b) Was approved subject to an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration; and

(c) Otherwise complies with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65850.6(b), or its successor provision, for addition of a collocation facility to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, including, but not limited to, compliance with all performance and maintenance requirements, regulations and standards in this chapter and the conditions of approval in the wireless telecommunications collocation facility permit; and

2. The collocations were specifically considered when the relevant environmental document was prepared for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

3. Before collocation, the applicant seeking collocation shall obtain all other applicable non- discretionary permits, as required pursuant to the Sonoma Municipal Code.

F. New or Amended Permit. Except as otherwise provided above, approval of a new or amended permit shall be required when the facility is modified other than by collocation in accordance with this section, or the proposed collocation:

1. Increases the height of the existing permitted telecommunications tower or otherwise changes the bulk, size, location, or any other physical attributes of the existing permitted wireless telecommunications collocation facility unless specifically permitted under the conditions of approval applicable to such wireless telecommunications collocation facility; or

2. Adds any microwave dish or other antenna not expressly permitted to be included in a collocation facility by the conditions of approval.

G. Appeals. Notwithstanding any provision of the Sonoma Municipal Code to the contrary, including but not limited to Chapter 19.84 and any other section of this Chapter, any applicant may appeal a decision by the planning director. The appeal must be filed within 10 days from the planning director's decision. The appeal must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The City manager shall serve as the appellate authority for all appeals of all actions of the planning director taken pursuant to this section. The City shall provide notice for an administrative hearing by the City manager. The City manager shall limit its review to whether the project should be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in this section. The decision of the City manager shall be final and not subject to any further administrative appeals.

5.30.150 Business License

A permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be a substitute for any business license otherwise required under the Sonoma Municipal Code.

5.30.160 Emergency Deployment

In the event of a declared federal, state, or local emergency, or when otherwise warranted by conditions that the planning director deems to constitute an emergency, the planning director may approve the installation and operation of a temporary wireless telecommunications facility (e.g., a cell on wheels or "COW"), which is subject to such reasonable conditions that the planning director deems necessary.

5.30.170 Operation and Maintenance Standards

A. All wireless telecommunications facilities must comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards. All necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, or operator within 48 hours:

1. After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or

2. After permittee, owner, operator, or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from a resident or the planning director.

B. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:

1. General dirt and grease;

2. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;

3. Rust and corrosion;

4. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;

5. Missing, discolored, or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;

6. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; 7. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and

8. Any damage from any cause.

C. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the planning director.

D. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation.

E. Each facility shall be operated and maintained at all times in compliance with applicable federal regulations, including FCC radio frequency emissions standards.

F. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply at all times with the noise regulations of this chapter and shall be operated and maintained in a manner that will minimize noise impacts to surrounding residents. Except for emergency repairs, any testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, unless alternative hours are approved by the planning director. Backup generators, if permitted, shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing.

G. If a flagpole is used for camouflaging a wireless telecommunications facility, flags shall be flown and shall be properly maintained at all times.

H. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this section and the conditions of approval. 5.30.180 No Dangerous Conditions or Obstructions Allowed

No person shall install, use or maintain any wireless telecommunications facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public sidewalk or parkway, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.

5.30.190 Permit Expiration

A. A permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of 10 years, unless the Planning commission authorizes a longer period or pursuant to another provision of the Sonoma Municipal Code the permit lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of such period, the permit shall expire.

B. A permittee may apply for extensions of its permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to expiration of the permit.

C. If a permit has not expired at the time an application is made for an extension, the planning director may administratively extend the term of the permit for subsequent ten-year terms upon verification of continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved, as well as any other applicable provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that are in effect at the time the permit extension is granted.

1. At the planning director's discretion, additional studies and information may be required of the applicant.

2. If the planning director determines that the facility is nonconforming or that additional conditions of approval are necessary to bring the facility into compliance with the provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code that are then in effect at the time of permit expiration, the planning director shall refer the extension request to the Planning commission.

D. The request for an extension shall be decided by the Planning commission if the permit expired before the application is made for an extension or if the planning director refers the matter to the Planning commission. After notice and a public hearing, the Planning commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the extension.

5.30.200 Cessation of Use or Abandonment

A. A wireless telecommunications facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility.

B. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the planning director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.

C. Failure to inform the planning director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for:

1. Prosecution;

2. Revocation or modification of the permit; 3. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this chapter or conditions of approval of the permit;

4. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures established under the Sonoma Municipal Code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner’s expense; and

5. Any other remedies permitted under the Sonoma Municipal Code.

5.30.210 Revocation.

A. Grounds for revocation. A permit granted under this chapter may be revoked for noncompliance with any enforceable permit, permit condition or legal provision applicable to the facility.

B. Revocation procedures.

1. When the planning director finds reason to believe that grounds for permit revocation exist, the planning director shall send written notice by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, to the permittee at the permittee’s last known address that states the nature of the noncompliance as grounds for permit revocation. The permittee shall have a reasonable time from the date of the notice, but no more than thirty days unless authorized by the planning director, to cure the noncompliance or show that no noncompliance ever occurred.

2. If after notice and opportunity to show that no noncompliance ever occurred or to cure the noncompliance, the permittee fails to cure the noncompliance, the city council shall conduct a noticed public hearing to determine whether to revoke the permit for uncured noncompliance. The permittee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and may speak and submit written materials to the City Council. After the noticed public hearing, the City Council may revoke or suspend the permit when it finds that the permittee had notice of the noncompliance and remained in noncompliance with an enforceable permit, permit condition or law applicable to the facility. Written notice of the city council’s determination and the reasons therefor shall be dispatched by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, to the permittee’s last known address. Upon revocation, the city council may take any legally permissible action or combination of actions necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

5.30.220 Removal and Restoration, Permit Expiration, Revocation or Abandonment

A. Permittee's removal obligation. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the permittee, owner or operator shall remove its wireless telecommunications facility and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the City. If the facility is located on private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the expense of timely removal and restoration. B. Failure to remove. Failure of the permittee, owner, or operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 30 days after expiration, earlier termination, or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of the Sonoma Municipal Code, and be grounds for:

1. Prosecution;

2. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by this chapter or conditions of approval of permit;

3. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures established under the Sonoma Municipal Code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; or

4. Any other remedies permitted under the Sonoma Municipal Code.

C. Summary removal. In the event the planning director determines that the condition or placement of a wireless telecommunications facility located in the public right-of-way constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the planning director may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall be served upon the person who owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.

D. Removal of facilities by City. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with the Sonoma Municipal Code. Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee nor the owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such facility not timely removed by the permittee, owner, or operator after notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances.

5.30.230 Effect on Other Ordinances

Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of the Sonoma Municipal Code, including but not limited to obtaining any necessary encroachment or building permits. In the event of a conflict between any provision of this chapter and other provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code, this chapter shall control.

5.30.240 Effect of State or Federal Law In the event that state or federal law prohibits discretionary permitting requirements for certain wireless telecommunications facilities, the permits required by this chapter for those facilities shall be deemed to be ministerial permits. For those facilities, in lieu of a conditional use permit, a ministerial permit shall be required prior to installation or modification of a wireless telecommunications facility and all provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to any such facility with the exception that the required permit shall be reviewed and administered as a ministerial permit by the planning director rather than as a discretionary permit. Any conditions of approval set forth in this chapter or deemed necessary by the planning director shall be imposed and administered as reasonable time, place and manner rules.

5.30.250 Appeals

Except as may be otherwise provided by this Chapter, any planning commission determination on the issuance, modification, revocation, or extension of a use permit may be appealed to the city council under, and in accordance with, the provisions of Chapter 19.84. Kelly Clancy

From: Jen Patera Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:05 AM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: 5G

Town Council and Planning Committee Members,

I would like to voice my concerns regarding the 5G issue that is on the April Planning/Town Council Meeting agendas in Moraga. As a cancer survivor, I am not convinced by the inconclusive studies on the safety of this technology. I am also a school administrator and very concerned for safety of the children in our community. I do not think we should take the we'll see approach and put our residents at risk.

We, as Californians, are all sensitive to the threat of wildfires in Lamorinda. Pole loading has been identified as the cause of several wildfires in CA.

1. The 2007 Fire Siege in Southern California. In October 2007, strong Santa Ana winds swept across Southern California and caused dozens of wildfires. Several of the worst wildfires were reportedly caused by downed power lines/poles. 2. The 2011 Windstorm in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) territory, during which more than 440,000 customers lost power after utility poles and attachments were knocked down in a windstorm.

The PCUC's A Brief Introduction to Utility Poles (July 2014) states "that it is reasonable to require less frequent inspections in Northern California because there is no history of catastrophic power line fires in Northern California (p10)." "With there being more than 4 million utility poles in California. It will never be possible for Commission staff to inspect every pole. In addition, as the facilities attached to utility poles increase in number, weight, and complexity in order to meet increased demand for evolving electric and communications services, another challenge will be to ensure that Commission rules keep up with changes in engineering best practice (p23)." How can we trust that poles will be frequently inspected for safety and overloading?

In March of 2015, The Moraga Town Council proposed and later approved phased undergrounding of utilities and poles along Moraga Road/Scenic Corridors. The criteria included: benefit to to the overall community, safety, visual impact…To further elaborate the safety criterion, vehicular collisions with existing poles and 3 overhead wires that are knocked down by fallen trees can become dangerous. I encourage the town to continue their phased undergrounding along Moraga Road and NOT allow the Telecom industry to litter our scenic corridor with their poles, antennas, and boxes! More investigations into the possibility of fiber optics in needed, which is safer, faster, and hidden!

One of the reasons we all love Moraga is the rural town feel. If I understand what is being proposed by the industry carriers (scope and size), the antennas, towers, etc that will line our streets will severely impact our towns aesthetics, giving the Town AND residents very little control of where these are placed. These towers and antennas will be a blight in our community and will affect property values. I am citing a study from The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” initiated June 2, 2014. The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. And 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antenna. I received an email from Moraga Realtor Tara Rochlin, she stated that towers/antennas would "definitely have an impact on real estate prices and I imagine for anyone with health concerns about the 4 and 5G antennas would also not buy a home near one."

1 We live on Moraga Road. On our property is an easement with an enormous PGE tower, we also have a utility pole 2 feet from our driveway/mailbox that is 20 feet from our children's bedrooms. We also have two street signs along the front sidewalk on our property. I am VERY concerned about the impact of now adding 5G antennas/equipment will have on our personal property value and others in the same situation. Our own home cannot bear one more negative impact! I want homeowners to have the right to refuse the placement of antennas on utility/industry poles placed on right of ways on our properties. These antennas should not be in residential neighborhoods, near schools, or on our scenic corridors!

Thank you for your time and commitment to the Town of Moraga. We are very grateful.

Respectfully,

Jenifer Patera

2 Kelly Clancy

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:08 AM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf Cc: Justin Verrips Subject: 5G Cell Towers

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installation of these dangerous antennas in residential and commercial areas within the City of Moraga.

Sincerely,

Joanne and Justin Verrips Current Residents of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Aimee Filipas Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 10:01 AM To: Kelly Clancy; Derek Farmer; Marty McInturf Subject: 5G Cell Towers

Hello,

We have come to learn that Moraga is considering adding 5G cell towers and we are also aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installation of these dangerous antennas in residential and commercial areas within the City of Moraga. Please protect the people and children of this community.

Sincerely,

Aimee and Robert Filipas Current Residents of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Marty McInturf Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 6:01 PM To: Kelly Clancy Cc: Steve Kowalski Subject: FW: Cell Towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

FYI.

Marty

Marty McInturf, CMC Town Clerk Town of Moraga 925‐888‐7022 [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:41 PM To: Marty McInturf Subject: Cell Towers

Marty McInturf,

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Sincerely,

J Carson Current resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Marty McInturf Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 6:00 PM To: Kelly Clancy Cc: Steve Kowalski Subject: FW: Urgent: 4G/5G Small Cell Towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

FYI.

Marty

Marty McInturf, CMC Town Clerk Town of Moraga 925‐888‐7022 [email protected]

From: Linda Malmquist [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 6:25 PM To: Marty McInturf Subject: Urgent: 4G/5G Small Cell Towers

[email protected]

Marty McInturf,

We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Will this topic be on the agenda at an upcoming planning commission meeting?

Either way, as a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the City of Moraga.

Sincerely,

Linda Malmquist Current resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Mairin MacDonald Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:04 AM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: 5G

Dear Ms. Clancy,

Please enter this email into record for the April 9, 2019 counsel hearing. My husband and I strongly oppose the deployment of small cell 4G and 5G towers in our neighborhood. We are concerned about aesthetics, noise, health impacts and property values. Please stand up to Telcon. Vote in the most restrictive Urgency Ordinance possible and vote NO.

Sincerely, Mairin MacDonald Moraga Resident

[email protected]

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Steve Malmquist Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:35 AM To: Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: 5G small cell towers

Dear Council & Planning Commission Members, We are very aware of the serious adverse safety, health, privacy, environmental, aesthetic, and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Lamorinda, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of our community. Sincerely, Steve Malmquist Current Resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Lisa Eiben Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:13 AM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: 5G towers

Dear Council & Planning Commission Members, I am aware of the serious adverse safety, health, privacy, environmental, aesthetic, and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers based on literature research I've conducted. We have many of the two most vulnerable groups in our population, children and the elderly. If the town council feels or knows information that there is DEFINITELY NOT a health risk to the towers being in the community, I would be open to reading that research as well. I believe it is my obligation as a mother and someone who wants to live a healthy life, to go on record opposing the approval of 5G towers, unless we know for certain, the towers do not cause a health and safety risk to myself, my family and my fellow neighbors. I would hope that as an advocate for our town and our community, you would feel the same way. As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of our community. I look forward to hearing your response at the town council meeting.

Sincerely, Lisa Eiben Current Resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Kerry MacInnes Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:49 AM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: The dangers of 5G?

Dear Council & Planning Commission Members,

I have recently become aware that there might be serious adverse safety, health, privacy, environmental, aesthetic, and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

I know this is a controversial subject, but as a constituent and resident of Lamorinda, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of our community. Or, at the very least, as opposed to just blindly accepting this technology, ensure that it is truly safe for everyone, including children and older adults.

Sincerely,

Kerry MacInnes

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Mike MacDonald Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 12:47 PM To: Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Cc: Mairin MacDonald Subject: 4G & 5G Small Cell Tower Opposition

Dear Council & Planning Commission Members,

My wife and I, along with many concerned citizens of Lamorinda, are very aware of the serious adverse impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers. Please enter this into record for the April 10, 2019 counsel hearing. As a constituent and resident of Moraga, My wife and I strongly oppose the installment of small cell 4G and 5G towers in our neighborhood.

Sincerely, Mike MacDonald Current Resident of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Joan Evans Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:06 PM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: Town of Moraga cell towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I am writing to you today to oppose any new 4G and 5G cell towers in Moraga. I am very aware of the serious adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

As a constituent and resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of the Town of Moraga.

Sincerely,

Joan Evans

Joan Evans DRE# 01168111 Village Associates 93 Moraga Way Orinda, CA 94563 Cell: 925-260-7555 www.angieandjoan.com

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Nadine Whisnant Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:29 PM To: Marty McInturf; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Mary Jane Muller Subject: Planning commission meeting and city council meeting regarding small cell towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Please enter this email into the record for both meetings.

As a property owners In Moraga we would like to voice out opposition to the future small cell towers proposed for our neighborhoods.

Although the city’s stance will most likely be “there is nothing we can do”, we urge you to join with the other municipalities across the country in implementing the strongest restrictions possible for these. To do less than this is a betrayal of the trust in you placed by the residents of your town. There are restrictions that the towns can place on these installations that do not stop with design, the vault can be required to be placed underground, the noise emissions from the system can be regulated, there can be a distance required between installations, you have the right to keep them a safe distance from personal property, sidewalks and streets. Each of these towers comes with a warning label, and they are required to be turned off while they are being worked on, this is due to the inherent danger of these waves.

Out elderly mother lives in the town and is concerned with effects on her health as well.

Please, please protect our town and do not permit telcon to walk over our property rights.

This is working its way through the courts. Please, please stand up for your citizens and be on the right side of safety for our children and elderly.

Thank you,

Nadine & Michael Whisnant 100 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Orinda 497 Tharp Drive, Moraga

Sent from my iPhone

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Mindy Sauve Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:24 AM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; [email protected]; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; [email protected]; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PLEASE - No 5G in Lamorinda

Dear Council & Planning Commission Members:

I am aware and concerned of the serious adverse safety, health, privacy environmental, aesthetic and other impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted round the clock from 4G and 5G Cell Towers. As a constituent and resident of Lamorinda, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas IN or NEAR any residential and school areas of our communities.

Sincerely Mindy Sauve Moraga Resident

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Katariina Tuovinen Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:05 PM To: Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: Concern about 4G and 5G cell towers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Moraga Council & Planning Commission Members,

We are writing you as Moraga residents, homeowners, and parents of two young kids at Camino Pablo elementary school.

We are very concerned about the serious adverse safety, health, privacy, environmental, aesthetic, and property value impacts caused by the RF microwave radiation transmitted 24/7 from 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers.

As constituents and residents of Moraga, we want to register our requests that you prevent the installment of these dangerous antennas in residential areas of our community.

Thanks for your attention to this matter,

Katariina Tuovinen & Evan Burgess

Current Residents of Moraga

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Amanda Malmquist Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 5:22 PM To: Roger Wykle; Kymberleigh Korpus; Mike McCluer; Renata Sos; Steve Woehleke; Marty McInturf; Derek Farmer; Kelly Clancy; Steve Kowalski; Brian Horn; Cynthia Battenberg; Mary Jane Muller Subject: FCC Guidelines for 5C and permissible standards of regulation Attachments: DelBianco_Conditional.Use_.Federal-Law-Does-Not-Prohibit-the-County-from-Imposing-Stricter- Procedural-Requirements-on-Wireless-Facilities-Than-on-Other-Pole-A.pdf; Guide-to-FCC-Small- Cell-Order.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Planning Commission and Town Council Members,

I understand for many local governments there is a concern when drafting the urgency ordinance ahead of the April 15th deadline of remaining compliant with FCC regulations on the matter. I wanted to share the following information that is very relevant to what we're doing in Moraga‐ I have attached two documents referenced in the article below that I believe will help Moraga develop regulations similar to what other similar towns are doing to protect residents. Specifically, as a resident, I would like to see a substantial minimum required setback distance from homes (to protect home value, privacy among other reasons) applied to all wireless facilities and related equipment. This is permissible according to FCC as long as it is applied to all providers that provide functionally equivalent services. https://ehtrust.org/usa‐city‐ordinances‐to‐limit‐and‐control‐wireless‐facilities‐small‐cells‐in‐rights‐of‐ways/ "Local ordinances note various purposes such as preserving visual character, protecting environmental resources, and protecting residents against adverse health effects. They take a variety of approaches, such as prohibiting small cells in certain areas, creating application and recertification fees and imposing aesthetic and administrative requirements. Some combine several of these approaches. Importantly, federal pre-emption has been exaggerated. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements for example. Please consider these two useful documents that came out of the efforts in Montgomery County Maryland by the law office of Mark C. Del Bianco and which clarify what localities can and cannot do in terms of procedural requirements for companies.

 12/ 20/2018 “Summary of Proposed FCC Small Cell Order”: A critical read on the FCC order.  10/2018 Memo: “Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments” "

From Delbianco memorandum (attached): ".....[the] suggestion that the differential treatment of wireless and other infrastructure might create a risk of a legal challenge is not correct. There is no question that Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks for small wireless facilities. In doing so, it may discriminate between attachments intended to provide wireless services and those used to provide other services that are not functionally equivalent to wireless services. As long as the county ordinance does not discriminate between functionally equivalent wireless services, the ordinance would only be subject to legal challenge if it "prohibit[ted] or ha[d] the effect of prohibiting the provision of

1 wireless services" in violation of Sections 253 or 337 of the federal Communications Act. Neither of those provisions of the Communications Act prohibits the county from imposing stricter zoning procedural requirements on wireless carriers' service facilities than on cable, telco, or other services that use the same poles or facilities...... "

2

December 20, 2018

Summary of Final FCC Small Cell Order Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order; WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84

Prepared in collaboration with Mark Del Bianco, Principal, Law Office of Mark C. Del Bianco

DISCLAIMER: This document is intended to be a tool for education and information. It offers a summary of the FCC order. This document is not intended to provide legal advice, or to be a legal analysis or a comprehensive list of all potential outcomes of this order. We offer this information for reference purposes only, as a starting point for analysis by interested parties.

At its September 2018 open meeting, the FCC adopted a report and order (collectively, the "Order") in its ongoing proceeding to streamline the rollout of infrastructure for broadband services, including small cells for 4G and 5G wireless service.[i] This summary addresses the effect of the Order on the issues of most importance to NCC members that have or are considering enacting small cell ordinances, or have or will be negotiating agreements with carriers or infrastructure providers such as Mobilitie or Crown Castle.

The Order has two parts: (1) an new set of regulations (the "Rules") that govern shot clocks and other limited aspects of the rollout of small wireless facilities (a/k/a "small cells") and (2) a Declaratory Ruling that does not enact any new regulations but is the FCC's interpretation of how the provisions of Section 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act that limit state or local regulations that "effectively prohibit" the provision of wireless services should be applied.[ii] The Declaratory Ruling portion of the Order adopts the position that a state or local government need only “materially inhibit” a particular small wireless facility deployment in order for its action to constitute an "effective prohibition" under Section 253 or 332(c)(7). Based on this conclusion, the Declaratory Ruling provides guidance on fees local governments may charge and on how they may regulate ancillary rollout issues such as tower spacing, equipment design and other aesthetic concerns. In lay terms, this means the FCC is making it easier for private companies to take local governments to court if they believe municipal policies are effectively prohibiting network investment.

Key Takeaways from the Order

• The Order is a blatant effort by the FCC to strengthen the hand of carriers in negotiations with local governments over small cell deployment and to limit the ability of local governments to negotiate in the public interest around small cells.

• The good news is that the FCC has left local governments with some power and flexibility to enact reasonable regulations governing small cell deployments. With the right approach and partner, local governments have a higher hill to climb but can still negotiate win-win outcomes that benefit carriers while addressing citizens' concerns.

• Local governments should immediately take proactive steps to maintain their leverage in possible negotiations with carriers.

• Local governments should move expeditiously to enact zoning and other regulations to address issues of importance to their community. These may include application processing cost recovery, antenna design, location and spacing, additional pole and equipment aesthetic requirements, and other factors of local concern.

• In particular, setting out and standardizing aesthetic requirements, including pre- approval of antenna, equipment cabinet and street furniture designs where appropriate, will make it easier for local governments to process applications reasonably expeditiously and to defend challenged siting decisions or failures to meet shot clock deadlines.

Key Issues for Members

What types of facilities does the Order apply to?

The Order applies to all types of facilities used to provide wireless services. There are specific shot clock and other rules that govern certain small wireless facilities, i.e., generally those less than 50 feet tall and on which the antenna size is less than 3 cubic feet.

What happens if a local government already has an agreement with a carrier or infrastructure provider that covers small wireless facilities?

• The FCC did not address whether existing agreements are preempted by the Order. While existing agreements were not explicitly grandfathered, there is no obvious means of voiding them. The result is that local governments should be able to keep existing agreements. • In order to preempt existing agreements involving private parties, the FCC would have to make certain findings that doing so was in the public interest. It did not do so in the Order. • Further evidence that the FCC did not intend to preempt existing agreements is its expressed intent in the Order to facilitate "mutually agreed solutions."

• Any attempt to preempt an existing agreement would require the carrier to file a lawsuit against the municipality, which seems very unlikely. • Even if a carrier filed a case, we do not believe it would be able to convince a court to void a freely negotiated commercial agreement.

Going forward, can a local government negotiate new agreements with carriers or infrastructure providers? If so, are there issues that cannot be addressed in an agreement?

• Yes, local governments can still negotiate with carriers and infrastructure providers. Nothing in the Order preempts local governments' ability to negotiate future agreements in order to provide a mutually acceptable process for deployment of small cells.[iii] However, the Rules and presumptions created by the Order give carriers more leverage when negotiating with local governments and reduce the ability of local governments to enact regulations that achieve desirable outcomes when carriers are unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations, or to negotiate at all. • The Declaratory Ruling provides guidance on some parameters of the deployment of small cells, including such factors as the cost, aesthetic requirements and location, but it does not prohibit local governments or carriers from reaching their own arrangements on these or any other factors. This means that if a local government wants to follow the Lincoln model of offering very rapid permitting in return for fees higher than the FCC sets, it may still do so.

Are there limits on the amounts that local governments can charge for small cell application and use fees?

• There is a presumed safe harbor for application and use fees, but no specific cap on fees. • The safe harbor amounts are (a) $500 for a single up-front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees, including any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the ROW. • The FCC views these amounts as safe harbors because it believes they are low enough that no carrier would challenge them if they were imposed unilaterally in a local government’s regulations. • Nothing in the Order prevents a local government from charging higher fees. However, under the FCC's framework, if a carrier files a lawsuit challenging the fees imposed by a local government, the burden would be on the local government to demonstrate that the amount is a reasonable approximation of its costs and that its costs are reasonable. • The FCC did not specify a methodology for calculating cost, or what expenses could be included. • We believe that the revenue-reducing effect of a cost-based methodology will be much greater for usage fees than for application fees, because usage fees are recurring.

Can a local government require in-kind contributions or set application or use fees at levels to achieve social goals such as closing the digital divide?

• If a court were to accept the FCC conclusion that fees must be cost-based, local governments would not be able to require in-kind contributions or set application or usage fees above cost. • Local governments can still negotiate agreements containing provisions for non- cost-based fees (as San Jose and Honolulu did), but the Order attempts to remove most of a local government's negotiating leverage on these issues, so there will now be little incentive for a provider to agree to do so.

What are the new application shot clocks?

• The Rules create four new shot clocks: § Collocation of small wireless facilities: Local government has 60 days to act upon to an application § Collocation of facilities other than small wireless facilities: 90 days. § Construction of new small wireless facilities: 90 days. § Construction of new facilities other than small wireless facilities: 150 days. • The Rules also provide for the resetting or pausing of the shot clock when a local government determines that an application is incomplete. If a municipality determines that an application is materially incomplete within ten day of filing and notifies the applicant of the deficiencies, the shot clock restarts when the completed application is filed. In order to prevent last minute “pausing” of the shot clock by local governments, an incompleteness determination must be made by the 30th day after an application is filed, and within 10 days after resubmission if a re-submitted application is still incomplete.

What is the legal effect of the new shot clocks?

• The shot clock deadlines have no direct legal effect. • If an application is not acted on within the deadline, nothing happens unless a carrier either commences a formal complaint proceeding at the FCC or files a case in state or federal court. In either case, the carrier would have to demonstrate that the failure to act on the application amounts to an "effective prohibition" on wireless service under Section 253 or 332. • Either process will take months, perhaps years. • The Order recognizes that the shot clock is only a presumption, and that local governments have the ability to demonstrate to a court that the delay is reasonable under the circumstances. • If a court finds that a shot clock violation is an effective prohibition, it will most likely order the local government simply to make a decision by a specific date in the near future; a court is very unlikely to order a local government to grant a specific application. • We believe that carriers prefer certainty and rather than litigate over a few shot clock violations will be willing to negotiate a reasonable time for guaranteed local government action on applications.

Do different shot clock deadlines apply when multiple applications are filed at the same time (batched)?

• No. • However, the FCC acknowledged that batched applications could strain local governments’ resources and potentially justify a failure to meet shot clock deadlines.[iv] • We believe that in any carrier lawsuit that was based on a failure to meet the shot clock deadlines on a large batch of applications, a court would be very sympathetic to a local government’s argument that the batch application had caused a legitimate overload on its permitting resources.

What types of local government permits/authorizations do the new shot clocks apply to?

• The Rule applies to any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify wireless service facilities, including a zoning permit, a building permit, an electrical permit, a road closure permit, and an architectural or engineering permit. • The Order does not specify whether or how the shot clocks apply to requests to use light poles and other government facilities, whether located in or outside the right of way.

May a local government still take aesthetics into account in its small cell zoning regulations?

• Yes. • Aesthetic requirements must be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to similar types of infrastructure deployments (e.g., equipment cabinet size and color requirements would need to be similar to those for telco or cable company cabinets), and published in advance.[v]

May a local government require minimum spacing between small wireless facilities?

• Yes. The Order considers spacing requirements to be a subset of aesthetics requirements, and thus subject to same standard. • The Order gives no guidance on what might be a reasonable spacing distance.

What if a local government has an undergrounding requirement for all utilities?

• Regulations requiring all utility facilities (including antennas) to be placed underground would effectively prohibit wireless services because antennas have to be placed above ground in order to function. • Regulations requiring all wireless equipment other than antennas to be placed underground would be permissible, so long as they are applied on a non- discriminatory basis to other service providers, e.g. telco and cable companies. • It is not clear what sorts of poles or other above ground antenna facilities a local government would have to allow access to in order to avoid being considered “effectively prohibiting wireless service.”

Bottom Line

• This order significantly diminishes local decision making, but does not eliminate it. • Local governments cannot say no to all small cell antennas within specific neighborhoods or other areas of their communities. • Local governments can charge more than the recommended permitting fees and annual fees, but may have to show how the fees correlate with the local government’s cost for managing the permitting and right of way. • The order decreases a community’s capacity to receive recompense for the use of their right of way that is in excess of the cost of managing that right of way. • Local governments that are prepared by proactively putting in place policies and procedures will be able to retain some local control. • If you have an existing agreement, we believe it will be hard for a vendor to justify a request to change that agreement and it seems unlikely that the courts would side with them. • There will very likely be court challenges to this order.

Important Tips and Action Steps

• ANTENNA PLACEMENT - you cannot say no to any antennas on poles in an area. However, you can say no to a specific placement as long as there is a reasonable alternative. • UNDERGROUND - you cannot require that all of this infrastructure be placed underground, but you may be able to require that all but the antenna be placed underground. However, if you are planning to do so, you must do so for ALL utilities and you must have an ordinance in place. • STREET FURNITURE - you can require that street furniture have a certain aesthetic and a setback from the street (for both aesthetic and public safety reasons, such as to prevent loss of parking due to inability to open car doors). You must have an ordinance in place that applies to ALL utilities' street furniture in the local government’s right of way. • SHROUDING - You can require a certain aesthetic for certain neighborhoods and certain types of poles. If these requirements are in place in advance of a carrier approaching you, you are less likely to experience push back and your position will be more defensible if challenged in court. • PERMITTING - The time to revise and organize your permitting process is now. If your permitting process includes a plan to adhere to the shot clocks in the order, you will more likely be able to meet them. • SHOT CLOCK DEADLINES - The deadlines may be difficult to meet, but there is NO DEEMED GRANTED provision in this order. Batch permitting may be particularly problematic for local governments as the scope of such requests can overwhelm a permitting department, but if you work in good faith, keep the carrier updated, and are still unable to meet the deadline, it is likely the carrier will work with you. If instead they take you to court, your due diligence and proactive efforts will work in your favor. • APPLICATION COSTS - The costs listed in the order are for guidance. If you stay at or below them, your fees very likely will not be challenged in court. However, you can charge more if you have evidence that your costs are higher.

Including your engineering costs, permitting staff costs, and post-installation inspection costs may justify a higher application fee. If those costs are reasonable, the fee is unlikely to be challenged and if challenged, will likely be upheld even under the FCC’s test. • ANNUAL ROW FEE - If at or below the cost specified by the order ($270/year), this fee will very likely be unchallenged by carriers. If higher, a court may require the local government to justify the fee as being directly related to cost. • NEGOTIATING - Remember that one of the single most valuable characteristics of your permitting from the carrier perspective is predictability. If you can give a high degree of certainty that permits will be finished in a predictable manner, carriers will be much more willing to negotiate for higher fees or more public interest requirements than those set by the FCC.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if a municipality is in negotiations with a carrier and they demand that the agreement provisions on such issues as fees, spacing and aesthetic requirements follow the "guidelines" in the FCC small cell Order?

In that case, the municipality has two or perhaps three options. First, the municipality can capitulate to the carrier's claims about what the Order requires. Obviously, we do not believe any municipality should do so. The second option is for the municipality to abandon the negotiation process and instead act unilaterally to adopt an ordinance, a set of regulations or a model franchise agreement (if it has a franchising process in place) that it believes is consistent with the desires of its residents and at the same time presents a low (and thus acceptable) risk of a court challenge.

If a municipality has already negotiated a small cell facility agreement with one or more carriers/infrastructure providers, it has a third option. It can adopt an ordinance or draft a template agreement reflecting essentially the same terms as the executed agreement. In either case, it becomes much more difficult (albeit not impossible) for other carriers to challenge the model agreement or ordinance on its face because it contains essentially the same terms that the first carrier has already agreed do not effectively prohibit it from providing a wireless service.

What are municipalities doing to prepare for the Jan 13 deadline?

Most NCC members seem to be either negotiating agreements with carriers, taking unilateral steps to develop and put in place a process for consideration of applications to place small cell wireless facilities, or doing both simultaneously.

If a municipality enters into an agreement with a carrier and then the Order is overturned, is the municipality stuck with the agreement?

The answer in general is yes. No municipality is required to enter into any agreement with a carrier or infrastructure provider. If a municipality does so voluntarily, it will almost certainly be held to the terms of the agreement by a court. However, a municipality might be able to resolve this problem by including in the agreement a clause voiding the agreement or requiring its modification, in the event of a regulatory change (including the

overturning of the Order). Many types of telecommunications agreements contain such regulatory change clauses because parties recognize that the wording or scope of specific provisions in the agreement has been dictated by the then-existing telecommunications regulatory scheme, and should be changed if the regulations change.

If a municipality enacts an ordinance and then the Order is overturned, can it adjust the ordinance?

Yes. However, unless the original ordinance specifically permits retroactive application of aesthetic or other requirements, existing wireless facilities approved under the first ordinance may be effectively grandfathered. Almost certainly, neither application nor usage fee increases could be applied retroactively.

What is the risk if a municipality does not have an ordinance in place prior to the Jan 13 deadline?

The only risk we are aware of for a municipality that has no process in place to consider applications for placement of small cell wireless facilities is the risk that it will be sued in state or federal court by a carrier arguing that the failure constitutes a municipality action that "effectively prohibits" it from providing wireless service. In the short term (say 180 days after January 13), there is very little risk that a carrier will bring such a lawsuit. There is little benefit to a carrier in doing so. The only relief a carrier could get in such a case would be an order requiring the municipality to enact an ordinance within a certain period of time. A court could not order the placement of specific antennas or create its own process for a municipality to follow. If a municipality is taking observable public steps to develop an ordinance, a lawsuit is unlikely and it is even more unlikely that a judge would rule against a municipality.

In the longer term (say after mid-2019), the risk of a lawsuit will increase and it becomes less defensible for a municipality not to have an approval process in place (or at least publicly in development). That is why we recommend that municipalities publicly begin developing a process for small cell facility regulation now. Doing so will allow adequate time for consideration of all the issues and the development of a policy that reflects residents' concerns, while at the same time providing for placement of infrastructure for the next generation of wireless services.

The Order identifies application and usage fee amounts that are neither caps nor safe harbors, but simply what the FCC believes are levels at which carriers will not file legal challenges. What local government usage fees are covered by these FCC "guidelines"?

The Order identifies $270 per year as a presumptively reasonable annual usage fee. This covers the right to attach an antenna to a pole or other facility and to locate associated equipment nearby. But if a municipality is providing not just the right to place antennas on municipally-owned poles, but ancillary facilities or services (such as access to electricity, existing underground ducts and underground casements at each pole), the FCC fee "guidelines" do not apply and the municipality can set the usage fees at any level it wishes. Municipalities should not be misled by carriers falsely claiming that the FCC's $270 annual usage fee includes anything other than the right to mount an antenna on a pole and put equipment nearby.

Does the Order impose non-discrimination requirements, i.e., does it require municipalities to treat wireless carriers the same as they treat electric companies, cable companies or other utilities?

No. The non-discrimination requirements identified in the Order are the FCC's interpretations of the language of Sections 253 and 332(C)(7), and are limited in scope. Section 253(a) addresses only state or local government actions (including discrimination) that effectively prohibit “any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,” while Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is even narrower: only actions that effectively prohibit “personal wireless services,” which is a small subset of telecommunications service. Thus, Section 253 only limits discrimination between providers of "telecommunications service," and the only type of discrimination that could potentially be problematic under Section 332(C)(7) would discrimination between "competing wireless services." Therefore, the Order does not (and the FCC could not) prohibit discrimination in fees, aesthetic requirements and application requirements as between wireless carriers and companies that do not provide "telecommunications service," a category that includes not only traditional utilities, but also cable companies and even wireline broadband Internet access providers (which under current FCC rules are not providers of telecommunications services).

How does the Order's interpretation of the "effective prohibition" language affect the ability of localities to regulate the number or location of small cell wireless antennas? If a carrier has full geographic coverage already, can a locality require it to justify the need to add additional capacity?

In the Small Cell Order, the FCC reaffirmed its interpretation that a locality can violate the "effective prohibition" language of Sections 253 and 332 by enacting regulations that merely "materially inhibit" the ability of wireless carriers to provide services. It specifically included in this category local regulations that affect carriers' ability to densify their networks or to add capacity to their networks. If this interpretation survives on appeal, then it would be unlikely that a locality could successfully defend a broad regulation that required a carrier to justify every requested small cell facility placement. However, NCC believes that a regulation that allows for reasonable rollout of small cell facilities based on objective criteria that reflect community concerns would be consistent with the FCC's interpretation. Such a regulation should not be seen as "materially inhibiting" any carrier's ability to offer its services, so long as a reasonable number of potential wireless facility locations would be available under the objective criteria. Such a regulation would be even more defensible if it has a "safety valve" that allows a carrier to meet capacity needs by allowing for placement of additional wireless facilities that do not meet the objective criteria. The regulation could even place the burden on the carrier to demonstrate the need for any additional non-compliant facility. A single "safety valve" decision would involve a limited geographic area and would be fact-specific, and should not be challengeable as a "material inhibition" on provision of wireless service in the locality.

Endnotes

[i] Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84 (the "Order").

[ii] Section 253(a) provides that “[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 332(c)(7) provides that “[t]he regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”

[iii] However, parts of the Declaratory Ruling and even the proposed Rules acknowledge the ability of local governments and carriers to negotiate outcomes different from those envisioned in the Declaratory Ruling. For example, with regard to proposals to allow local governments to implement best practices or an informal dispute resolution process, the FCC stated "Although we do not at this time adopt these proposals, we note that the steps taken in this order are intended to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. For example, as explained below, mutual agreement between the parties will toll the running of the shot clock period, thereby allowing parties to resolve disagreements in a collaborative, instead of an adversarial, setting." Order, ¶ 127. That reference is to proposed 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d), which allows local governments and carriers to agree to toll (i.e., lengthen) the shot clock period for any type of wireless facility. Similarly, nothing in the Declaratory Ruling prohibits local governments from reaching agreements with carriers and infrastructure providers that contain provisions fleshing out (or even departing from) the broad FCC guidelines on cost, aesthetic requirements, antenna location and other factors.

[iv] The FCC noted that under its “approach, in extraordinary cases, a siting authority, as discussed below, can rebut the presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes legitimate overload on the siting authority’s resources. Thus, contrary to some localities’ arguments, our approach provides for a certain degree of flexibility to account for exceptional circumstances. * * * The siting authority then will have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of effective prohibition by demonstrating that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services. Order, ¶¶ 110-112.

[v] The Order's discussion of the first two factors is brief and provides little guidance: [A]esthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are also permissible. In assessing whether this standard has been met, aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, because such discriminatory

application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact, reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. Order, ¶ 84. M E M O R A N D U M

October 17, 2018 TO: Susannah Goodman

FROM: Mark Del Bianco

Re: Federal Law Does Not Prohibit the County from Imposing Stricter Procedural Requirements on Wireless Facilities Than on Other Pole Attachments

This memo addresses an issue raised by staff at the Council work session on ZTA 18-11 on October 9, 2018. Specifically, staff suggested that the Council might be inviting a legal change if it passed an amendment which would require all applications for wireless transmission facilities to be conditional use if the carrier wanted the facility to be placed within the 60 foot setback. County staff explained that this would subject wireless attachments to a different approval process than that imposed on attachments by other industries. The staff stated that PEPCO and wireline service providers such as Verizon, Comcast or RCN were permitted to place equipment on poles under limited use zoning rules. Therefore, staff suggested, the amended ordinance might be discriminatory in violation of federal law and/or FCC regulations and could be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, this analysis is incomplete and therefore draws the wrong conclusion. If the County required conditional use for all wireless providers seeking to place wireless facilities within the 60 foot setback, there would be no impermissible discrimination and there would be no legal risk.

Summary

Staff's suggestion that the differential treatment of wireless and other infrastructure might create a risk of a legal challenge is not correct. There is no question that Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks for small wireless facilities. In doing so, it may discriminate between attachments intended to provide wireless services and those used to provide other services that are not functionally equivalent to wireless services. As long as the county ordinance does not discriminate between functionally equivalent wireless services, the ordinance would only be subject to legal challenge if it "prohibit[ted] or ha[d] the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services" in violation of Sections 253 or 337 of the federal Communications Act.

Neither of those provisions of the Communications Act prohibits the county from imposing stricter zoning procedural requirements on wireless carriers' service facilities than on cable, telco, or other services that use the same poles or facilities.

1

Analysis

Neither the provisions of the federal Communications Act, the existing FCC rules nor the order that was passed at the FCC's September meeting (the Small Cell Order) address the issues of setbacks or the specific procedures to be followed by a locality in considering an application for small cell wireless facilities.

The only two provisions of federal law that create non-discrimination requirements that might protect wireless services providers are Sections 253 and 337 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 253 and 337(c)(7). (These are the two provisions whose meaning and scope the FCC interpreted in the Small Cell Order. The new small cell rules in that order implement the FCC's interpretation of Sections 253 and 337(c)(7).)

Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides

(B) Limitations (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. * * *

The language of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) is very clear: the only prohibited discrimination is that between "providers of functionally equivalent services." "Functionally equivalent services" means wireless services that are functionally equivalent to those being provided by the "personal wireless service facilities" for which approval is sought. Obviously, neither electric utilities such as PEPCO, wireline broadband providers such as Verizon, nor cable providers such as Comcast are providing "functionally equivalent services" within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). Therefore, a county zoning ordinance that imposed different and stricter procedural requirements (e.g., conditional use) on wireless service facilities than on facilities used for providing fiber to the home, cable TV or other services would not be covered by, and could not be in violation of, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). [Note: if any of these other providers started to offer functionally equivalent wireless services and applied to place wireless equipment on poles, the county would almost certainly be in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) if it allowed them to do so without requiring them to follow the stricter provisions of the new ordinance.]

Section 253 also does not prohibit the county from imposing stricter procedural requirements on wireless service facilities than on cable, telco, or other uses of facilities. Section 253 has three relevant parts. Section 253(a) creates the general rule that "[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications

2 service." Then subsections (b) and (c) are so-called "savings clauses" that provide safe harbors or carve-outs to protect the ability of states and localities to regulate zoning and construction of wireless facilities:

(b) State regulatory authority Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.

(c) State and local government authority Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. . …

At least two courts have recognized that a locality does not violate Section 253(a) by enacting procedural requirements for wireless facilities (including small cell facilities) that are different from or stricter than those that apply to companies providing other services. Just last year in Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. City of Rye, 17 CV 3535 (S.D. N.Y. 2017), a federal district court reviewed the authority of the city of Rye to regulate both new ground- mounted small cell facilities and antennas to be attached to existing poles. Comcast challenged the application procedure imposed by the city. The Court considered "whether the review process employed by the City is itself a violation of Section 253(a)." It noted that "Plaintiff does not cite and the Court is not aware of any binding authority holding that a municipality’s review process is a “legal requirement” for purposes of Section 253(a) . . ." Id. at 8. The court went on to hold that

Moreover, review alone cannot be a proscribed barrier to entry under Section 253(a) because Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the TCA contemplates a process through which a local government can compile “substantial evidence” sufficient to justify denial of a request to place, construct, or modify wireless facilities. It is self-evident that this requirement necessitates thorough review.

Id. at 9. The court rejected Comcast's argument that the procedure imposed by Rye violated Section 253. Id. at 7-10.

Other courts have reached a similar conclusion, confirming that a locality does not violate Section 253 by regulating the use of rights of way so long as it does not discriminate between competitive services. See, e.g., TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2002).

3

The only mentions of non-discrimination requirements in the FCC Small Cell Order are in connection with the charging of fees and the imposition of aesthetic requirements. Nothing in the order prevents local jurisdictions from imposing different and stricter approval process requirements for the wireless industry than for other industries that attach equipment to poles.

In short, Montgomery County has the authority to regulate both the approval procedure and the setbacks for small wireless facilities to be placed in its ROW and in residential zones. In doing so, it may discriminate between attachments intended to provide wireless services and those used to provide other services that are not functionally equivalent to wireless services. As long as the county ordinance does not discriminate between functionally equivalent wireless services (and it does not, nor do any of the amendments), the ordinance would only be subject to legal challenge if it "prohibit[ted] or ha[d] the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services" in violation of Section 253. Since neither the ordinance nor any of the proposed amendments would explicitly prohibit the provision of wireless services - indeed all are designed to facilitate small cell deployment by increasing the number of potential antenna sites in residential zones - the only challenge could occur down the road if it turned out that in practice the county used the conditional approval process to prevent the deployment of sufficient antennas that it effectively prohibited the provision of wireless services.

4

Kelly Clancy

From: Derek Farmer Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:56 AM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: FW: Letter to the town council

From: kuailewangyou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 7:26 PM To: Derek Farmer Subject: Re: Letter to the town council

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am aware of the serious and adverse safety, privacy, and property value impacts caused by 4g and 5 g small towers. As a resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these antennas in residential areas and near schools.

Sincerely,

Limin Chen

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

1 Kelly Clancy

From: Derek Farmer Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:59 AM To: Kelly Clancy Subject: FW: Cell Towers

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kathy Franklin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:42 PM To: Derek Farmer Subject: Cell Towers

I am aware of the serious and adverse safety, privacy and property value impacts caused by 4g and 5g small Cell Towers. As a resident of Moraga, I want to register my request that you prevent the installment of these antennas in residential areas and near schools.

Sincerely,

Kathy Franklin 925.451.1808

1