Select Page

USA Policy Action on 5G & 4G 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 are asking, “What are other cities doing?”

This page holds a compilation of what states, cities and towns in the USA are doing to protect their communities. 

At the Federal level, regulations have moved forward to strip the rights of state and local governments to regulate the 5G build out.  The FCC voted to fastrack 5G and 4G small cell infrastructure with new rules put forward in 2018 and 2019. Communities who want to restrict the buildout of cell tower networks with protective setbacks are limited by these federal rules.  At the state level about 30 US states have laws in the books that also fasttrack installations and strip the authority of counties, cities and towns. This state small cell legislation streamlines the application process to access public rights of way, puts caps on costs and fees and tightens timelines for consideration and processing of cell siting applications. At the local level, cities are putting forward ordinances that remove setbacks that were in place for large cell towers and put in new setbacks such as 10 to 30 feet, allowing cell towers right near homes. 

Summary of Action in the USA

State Investigations Recommend Reducing Exposure

The New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology released its final report with 15 recommendations to reduce public exposure, increase transparency and strengthen federal regulations. The 5G Report recommends US federal agencies coordinate “to protect people, wildlife, and the environment from harmful levels of radiation” and states “until there is Federal action, New Hampshire should take the initiative to protect its environment.” The Commission recommendations include a public education campaign on reducing exposure, replacing Wi-Fi with wired (not wireless) networks in schools and independently funded health studies.  

Oregon’s SB 283 requires the Oregon Health Authority to review the peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly children’s exposure from wireless in schools. EHT will be releasing more information on this report in February 2021. Other passed state Bills to create investigations into 5G include Louisiana Bill HR 145. 

Resolutions to Halt 5G

Hawai’i County, Easton Connecticut, Keene New Hampshire and Farragut Tennessee have passed resolutions to halt 5G. The Lewis County Board of Commissioners in Tennessee passed a resolution requesting more safety research on 5G before additional deployment. 

 

The Coconut Creek Florida Commission adopted a Resolution on 5G and radiofrequency radiation “imploring the US Congress to allocate funding and direct a cross discipline federal agency study of the effects caused by exposure to current and proposed electromagnetic spectrum and radiofrequency commissions on human health and the environment in light of the recent implementation of fifth generation technology and to use those findings to create science based laws or rules regarding limiting human and environmental exposure.”

Resolutions Opposed to Federal Attack on Local Control 

Several cities are passing resolutions calling for local control of the placement of 5G and “small cell” towers as federal FCC and new state 5g streamlining laws have stripped their local authority. Greendale Wisconsin passed a Resolution R2018-20 referring to the FCC’s actions stripping local authority as “an  unprecedented attack on local control” which “threaten the Village of Greendale’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.” Oak Brook Illinois’ Resolution 2020-ITGL-R-1891 and the City of Jersey City, New Jerseys  Resolution 20-362 both call for local control. The Hallandale Beach Florida Resolution urges the federal government to initiate independent health studies on 5G. The Carmel City, Indiana Council approved a resolution asking state lawmakers, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress to limit 5G technology deployment in Indiana until the health effects are fully understood.

The Monmouth County New Jersey Board of Commissioners passed a resolution that supports towns  in the fight against telecommunication companies erecting 5G monopoles and other “concerning” telecommunication services. Resolution #2023-0544 calls for a review of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. According to the resolution, The Telecommunication Act essentially limits towns and counties from addressing “the placement, deployment, or distribution of data gathering equipment.”  Specifically, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 states that “no state or local statute or resolution, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”

County Officials Support Belmar In Fight Against 5G Towers

Crown Castle withdrew applications after Western Springs Illinois sent this letter. 

Local Ordinances to Restrict 5G and Small Cells in Neighborhoods, Near Homes and Schools

Numerous US cities and towns are passing ordinances to restrict 5G and the proliferation of wireless antennas near homes and schools with the authority they have. For example Los Altos, California passed an ordinance that did the following:

  • Prohibits installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods 
  • 500 foot setbacks for small cells  for multi-family residences in commercial districts
  • 500 ft separation from schools
  • 1500 ft separation between nodes

 

Other communities that have passed ordinances to restrict cell antennas near homes and schools include numerous cities in California such as Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Encinitas, Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnut City and San Diego County as well as  Bedford New Hampshire, Mason Ohio and more.

In sharp contrast to cities that are restricting cell antennas near homes, Washington DC has a setback of 10 feet and Montgomery County has a de facto setback of 30 feet. 

Worldwide Action

 

 

Over 600 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G, as have cities throughout Europe, such as Trafford, United Kingdom, Lille, France ,Ormidia, Cyprus, Balchik, Bulgaria. 

The Pancyprian Medical Association and Cyprus National Committee on the Environment and Child Health sent Parliament their position paper “The Risks to Public Health from the Use of the 5G Network.” Bermuda has halted 5G pending a report on safety and hosted a 2020 Consultation. Switzerland’s report on 5G health effects resulted in the Parliament’s refusal to loosen their radiation limits despite heavy industry lobbying efforts. The Netherlands issued a 5G report that recommended measuring radiation levels and also recommended against using the 26 GHz frequency band for 5G “for as long as the potential health risks have not been investigated.” Read more about 5G policy actions worldwide here. 

 

Local action 

Local Ordinances Address These Issues

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. 

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

 INVESTIGATION 

  • Appointing a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network

Below are additional actions taken by various states and municipalities. This list is updated occasionally as new information is available.

STATE ACTIONS

 

New Hampshire

On November 1, 2020, the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology released its final report to  New Hampshire Governor Christopher T. Sununu, Speaker of the House  Stephen J. Shurtleff,  President of the Senate Donna Soucy summarizing its findings that safety assurances for 5G have “come into question because of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies documenting deleterious health effects associated with cellphone radiation exposure.” 

The majority of the New Hampshire Commission voted to support 15 recommendations to the New Hampshire Governor. Recommendations include: support an independent study of 5G health effects; reduce public exposure to cell phones, wireless devices and replace Wi-Fi with wired- non wireless networks-  in schools and libraries; ensure cell network infrastructure antenna setbacks from schools and homes; measure levels of cell network radiation; establish wireless radiation limits to protect trees and insects; establish more sophisticated measurement protocols to include high data rates; require software changes to reduce radiation exposure into the body; establish wireless radiation-free zones; and call on the US Federal Communications Commission to do an environmental assessment on the impact of 5G and wireless infrastructure expansion. 

The state passed a bill that established a commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology.  

New Hampshire Bill 522: An act establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology which asks “Why have 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published U.S. Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, being ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)?” and “Why are the FCC-sanctioned guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation based only on the thermal effect on the temperature of the skin and do not account for the non- thermal, non-ionizing, biological effects of wireless radiation?”

Oregon 

Passed SB 283 requiring the Oregon Health Authority to review peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from the use of wireless network technologies in schools. 

Alaska

 

SB142 An Act relating to radiofrequency radiation exposure in schools

 

Louisiana  

Bill HR 145  requests the Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Health to study the effects of evolving 5G technology.  

 

California

 

SB 649 , a bill that streamlined 5G and 4G wireless facilities, was halted by a veto from the Governor after a massive opposition. 

In California fire stations lobbied to be exempt from having to install 5G and cell antennas on their fire stations after strong lobbying by firefighters to protect their health as previous investigations found brain damage from cell towers on fire stations. (Read more about firefighters and cell towers here.) The firefighters were successful in AB57 (2015) and SB 649 (2018)

 

H.R.530 – Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019 Sponsored by Representative Anna G. Eshoo CA

 

S.2012 – Restoring Local Control Over Public Infrastructure Act of 2019 Sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein CA

Hawaii

 

HCR197HD1 (Companion bill HR178HD1) Requesting a study that summarizes the effects of 5G wireless technology on biological life.

 

HR178HD1 (Companion bill HCR197HD1) Requesting a study that summarizes the published reports and studies on the effect of 5G wireless technology on biological life.

 

Illinois

HB 4653 In February 2020, Representative Mazzochi  introduced a companion House Bill 4653, creating the Local Control, Protection, and Empowering Law in the Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act.

 

HB 5818 On August 13, 2020 Representative Deanne Mazzochi introduced the “Protect Me From 5G” bill.

New York

Proposed A01503 Requires the office of information technology service to study and evaluate the future implementation and possible impact of 5G technology in the state.

Proposed A07173 Prohibits wireless communication facilities on school property; provides that a school may not negotiate for or enter into a contract for the placement or operation of any wireless communication facility on school property and schools with wireless communication facilities already on school property are allotted 180 days to terminate any contracts and remove the towers off the property.

 

Proposed A08637 Establishes a temporary commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology.

 

Massachusetts

 

S.129 Resolve relative to disclosure of radio frequency notifications. 

S.130 An Act relative to the safe use of electronic devices by children.  

H2885 An Act establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology.

Massachusetts has numerous other bills related to 5G and wireless found here

 

New Jersey

NJAR170 Proposed Establishes “New Jersey Commission on 5G Health Effects.”

Resolution of the City of Jersey City, N.J.  Jersey City Municipal Council requests government officials to introduce legislation allowing local municipalities to make the determinations regarding the safety of 5G technology and allowing municipalities to ban 5G towers from residential neighborhoods. 

 

Local RESOLUTIONS

CITY OF COCONUT CREEK RESOLUTION 

On November 12, 2020 the Coconut Creek Florida Commission adopted a Resolution on 5G and radiofrequency radiation “imploring the US Congress to allocate funding and direct a cross discipline federal agency study of the effects caused by exposure to current and proposed electromagnetic spectrum and radiofrequency commissions on human health and the environment in light of the recent implementation of fifth generation technology and to use those findings to create science based laws or rules regarding limiting human and environmental exposure.”

Hawai’i County 5G Resolution

The Hawaii County Council voted on July 22 to halt 5G developments on the Big Island until the controversial technology is proven safe. The vote came following passage of a 5G Resolution by the Hawaii County Planning Board.

  • “After hearing hours of public testimony decrying the supposed health risks of the new cellular network technology, the council voted 8-1 to approve a resolution calling for ‘telecommunication companies and public utilities operating in Hawaii County’ to halt any 5G development until independent research and testing concludes it is safe for humans,” reported Michael Brestovansky for the Hawaii Tribune-Herald on Thursday, July 23.
  • Read the Hawaii Tribune-Herald article HERE. 
  • READ THE RESOLUTION HERE
  • Watch testimony and full details here. 

Farragut, Tennessee 5G Resolution

The Farragut, Tennessee City Council approved a resolution on May 14, 2020, calling on state and federal governments to halt 5G until health risks are evaluated by “sound science.”  The resolution details how FCC limits are outdated and considered inadequate to protect human health by many scientists. (EHT maintains research on 5G, 4G and wireless radiation HERE.)

This resolution followed a symposium on 5G by experts posted online here. 

The resolution also calls on the FCC to conduct an independent study to reevaluate its radio frequency emissions standards in light of new developments in cellular technology like 5G. 

The Board of Selectmen will consider a resolution to ban 5G networks from Easton temporarily until more information can be gathered about the potential side effects of the transmissions.

Easton Connecticut 5G Resolution 

A 5G cease and desist resolution was unanimously approved by Easton Connecticut on May 7 2020. 

This action follows extensive investigations into the issue. The 5G Resolution can be accessed here. 

In January 2020, an expert forum —  “What You Should Know About 5G” — was organized by the only state representative to vote against accelerating 5G wireless facilities in Connecticut, David Michel, D-Stamford featuring Frank Clegg, the former president of Microsoft Canada; Patti Wood, founder of the nonprofit Grassroots Environmental Education; and Devra Davis, an epidemiologist and founder of the Environmental Health Trust. A video of the Stamford Connecticut meeting can be found HERE. 

See News story Easton bans 5G technology rollout citing lack of research, testing

  • “The town of Easton has decided to stop its 5G wireless technology rollout. Until research and testing show its safe for humans and the environment, a 5G cease and desist resolution was unanimously approved by the town on May 7. The American Academy of Pediatrics and hundreds of medical and scientific experts have advised the federal communication commission to test the long-term safety of 5G technology. Easton is the first town in Connecticut to ban 5G.”

Western Springs Illinois

Crown Castle withdrew its 5G small cell application in Western Springs, IL after the village council sent them a letter. (Western Springs Illinois Letter )

SEE 5G Antenna Application Withdrawn In Western Springs: Western Springs and Hinsdale residents have protested possibility of 5G antennas. Firm is looking at alternative sites.

Western Springs Illinois Letter 

Oak Brook, Illinois

Oak Brook Resolutions Oak Brook Illinois unanimously approved a motion to pass 2 resolutions to restore local control over 5G. 

Nevada City California

June 2020: Adds Protections to 5G ordinance; final vote still needed 

The Nevada City Council passed the first reading of an ordinance amending the city’s 5G wireless telecom ordinance

Amendments include adding the ability for the council to randomly test radio frequency radiation up to every two years on an applicant’s telecom facility, adding a section in which an applicant must attest under penalty of perjury that their statements are true, changing standards imposed on applicants to make them more objective and updating distancing requirements between facilities.

 

Keene New Hampshire halts 5G, March 2020 

  • Read the news article “New Hampshire City Council of Keene approves temporary 5G ban” 
  • “The council unanimously approved a separate motion, instructing staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance that would create location and design standards for small wireless facilities installed in public rights-of-way. Also known as small cells, these facilities can be used to roll out 5G, the next generation of mobile networks that boasts faster download and upload speeds, as well as previous generations.”

Santa Barbara California Pauses 5G, March 2020

Read news article “Council Hits ‘Big Fat Pause Button’ on 5G Antennas” Santa Barbara City Council Reverses Course, Delays Vote on Verizon Licensing Agreement

Hallandale Beach, Florida

Carmel City, Indiana

The Carmel City Council approved a resolution on Oct. 22, 2019, asking state lawmakers, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress to limit 5G technology deployment in Indiana until the health effects are fully understood.” According to news accounts 

  • “Carmel’s resolution urges the state Legislature, Congress and the FCC to “take a second look” at the evidence regarding health impacts and limit deployment in the meantime, Green said.
  • “While the council supports the innovation and use of new technology that will provide a better quality of life to Indiana residents and guests, it is very concerned about rushing to implement 5G technology before its effects on humans are fully understood, and urges prudent care be taken to ensure that no one is harmed therefrom,” it reads.
  • The resolution as originally drafted called for the state Legislature to “immediately suspend the deployment and use of 5G technology until scientific evidence conclusively establishes that this technology poses no health risks to humans.” That language was softened to “limit” before being presented to the council.

Greendale Wisconsin  

 

POLICIES & ORDINANCES  

Note: These were compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice, Scientists for Wired Technologyand Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources utilized on this page. Please be sure to go to these pages for more information.  

In addition, Americans For Responsible Technology has created a Sample Small Cell Ordinance that cities can use as a starting point which incorporates several- although not all- of these issues. Please download their model ordinance and utilize their extensive resources at this link. 

New York

White Plains, New York Wireless Ordinance 

  • In order to ensure and maintain the safety, property values, and aesthetic qualities of White Plains streets and neighborhoods, the following setback provision shall apply: residential districts, a minimum of 250 feet from the nearest structure;
  • Notifications to property owners located within 500 feet shall be written in a factual manner devoid of marketing promotion and approved by the Commissioner of Public Works;
  • All small wireless facilities… shall at all times be operated in compliance with the RF standards established by the Federal Communications Commission. These RF safety standards shall apply to the aggregate emissions of co-located and nearby facilities not just the emissions of a single antenna;
  • Liability insurance without a pollution exclusion, pollution being defined as any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal pollutant, irritant or contaminant including but not limited to artificially produced electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields and all artificially produced ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;
  • The following unique clause was also inserted: no new small wireless facilities, as defined in 47 CFR ¶1.6002 (1), shall be approved unless the applicant can establish that failure to approve such an application would violate federal or state law. This clause was inserted to allow the City of White Plains to deny an application if federal law continues to uphold the ‘significant gap’ provision. At the same time, it allows the CIty to approve an antenna if the law changes;
  • Link to White Plains New York Ordinance PDF

Ithaca New York Ordinance

  • A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
  • A 300 foot setback between antennas and homes (old code: 0 feet)
  • Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna, proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
  • Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for “future capacity” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a significant gap in coverage
  • Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas
  • Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed antennas
  • Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
  • Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the City at the expense of the applicant
  • Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
  • Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
  • Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas, including any on private homes (OTARD)
  • Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near wireless facilities
  • Requiring that the submittal of key items by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of perjury
  • Link to Ithaca New York Wireless Ordinance PDF

 

Massachusetts 

Randolph MA

500 foot setback from any residence or business. Randolph requires a certified engineer to take radio frequency radiation readings of the tower once a year and requires the tower company to recertify it’s tower every year. Link to Code

Lunenburg, MA

500 foot setbacks from any residence. Link to Code 

Great Barrington MA has 500 foot setbacks away from residences AND their zoning ordinances state; “Towers and personal wireless service facilities shall be located so as to minimize the following potential impacts: Safety from excessive electromagnetic radiation, in case the tower or personal wireless service facility is found to exceed the FCC guidelines.” https://ecode360.com/28653470
Stockbridge MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school, park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence.

Florida

RESOLUTION NO. 2021-58: RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE  BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN APPLICATION  OF VERIZON/TILSON TECHNOLOGY FOR A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AT 3 LIGGETT ROAD IN THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE, COUNTY OF OCEAN 

The conditional requirement for deployment in Lavallette, and the City expressly made this a condition precedent before deployment:  “The applicant shall obtain certification from the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Department of Defense demonstrating that the installation does not emit RF frequencies which may interfere with avionics of any approaching civil or military aircraft.” The City also requires the applicant to provide RF meters used by their technicians and training the City employees. 

 

Arkansas

Booneville, Arkansas

Danville, California

Proposed Ordinance No. 2018-07: Wireless Communication Facilities

  • Aesthetic requirements (design guidelines may be developed and amended from time to time to clarify aesthetic and public safety goals and standards)
  • Utilities must be underground to extent feasible. “Meters, panels, disconnect switches and other associated improvements must be placed in inconspicuous locations to the extent possible”.
  • Permits valid for initial period of 10 years max
  • “Where feasible, the location of wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be located on publicly owned or controlled property or right-of-way.”
  • Would allow small cells in residential districts:

–“All facilities shall be substantially screened from the view of surrounding properties and the public view or collocated with existing facilities or structures so as not to create substantial additional visual, noise, or thermal impacts. “

–Property owners within 300 ft of proposed site must be notified

Danville, California: Ordinance No. 2018-07 Wireless Communications Facilities PDF

http://mystreetmychoice.com/danville.html

http://scientists4wiredtech.com/danville/municipal-wireless-code/

Encinitas, California 

Fairfax, California

Urgency Ordinance to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities; Ad hoc committee to study viability of fiber network

Ordinance No.819 An Urgency Ordinance Enacting Title 20 (“Telecommunications”) of the Fairfax Municipal Code to Establish New Regulations for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities [small cell devices a.k.a. 5G]

Los Altos, California

  • installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods is prohibited
  • 500 foot setbacks for small cells  for multi-family residences in commercial districts
  • 500 ft separation from schools
  • 1500 ft separation between nodes
  • Los Altos Urgency Ordinance: 
  • Los Altos Citing Guidelines:

This ordinance was passed in 2019. Then the Los Altos City Council then rejected 12 applications from AT&T and one from Verizon because they didn’t meet those rules. In response, both cell companies sued in federal court, arguing the denial wasn’t based on evidence. The  lawsuit is still pending while consultants hired by the city of Los Altos worked on a new ordinance. The new ordinance, which was reviewed by the Los Altos Planning Commission on Thursday, says that cell nodes can go in residential streets as long as they are near a main road, within 200 to 500 feet.

According to WireAmerica.org: The new Los Altos ordinance “says the city will grant exceptions if a cell company has evidence they need a site in a residential neighborhood to eliminate a significant gap in telecommunications coverage. The company would have to demonstrate, with substantial evidence in the public record, that not putting the antenna at that location would result in an effective prohibition of telecommunications service — a tough row to hoe for Wireless companies because everyone can make a wireless phone call on every carrier network in Los Altos today. The ordinance has several other restrictions on things like height, noise and Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) design. Attorney Deborah Fox, who is representing the city against AT&T and Verizon, said the ordinance is “state of the art” and she is confident that it meets federal law.”

Marin County, California

Draft as of June 21, 2019 The city is mapped to show where the cell towers are allowed.Marin drafts preferences for 5G rollout,Point Reyes Light

  • “Marin’s draft rules select industrial, commercial or agricultural sites, or sites near public facilities, as preferred locations for the antennas; residential and mixed-use sites and areas within 1,500 feet of schools and daycare centers are the least-preferred locations.The draft favors placing antennas on existing street poles or traffic lights, versus new poles or small cell facilities. It limits antennas to one per pole and stipulates they must be at least 1,000 feet apart. It also includes aesthetic requirements that aim to blend equipment, and prohibits equipment on historic buildings.”

Mill Valley, California

Urgency Ordinance No 18, September 6, 2018

Palo Alto, California

City Council voted unanimously to approve a Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff had proposed. Council also voted unanimously in favor of a motion to direct City Staff “to come back as soon as possible but [in] no more than [one year], with an updated Ordinance/Resolution that considers”  (and e summarizing):

  1. Disfavoring the placement of cell towers in, for example, residential zones and near schools;
  2. Minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools, and minimum distances between cell towers;
  3. Creating a list of city-owned buildings that would be appropriate sites for macro cell towers (i.e., as an alternative to small cell node cell towers next to people’s homes);

Council also voted to direct City Staff to return to Council with a recommendation for “best practices” with respect to inspecting antennas.

“Seeking to strike a balance between federal requirements and resident concerns, Palo Alto approved on Monday night new rules for reviewing the flurry of applications that the city has been receiving from telecommunication companies seeking to install antennas on local streetlights and utility poles.

By a 6-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Tanaka absent, the council adopted a set of “objective standards” for wireless communication facilities, including a menu of preferred design alternatives for radio equipment and antennas. And in a nod to the dozens of residents who have raised alarms about the proliferation of cellular facilities on their blocks, the council launched a new effort to further restrict where such technology can be installed and to explore “minimum distance” requirements for wireless equipment in relation to local schools and homes.”

Palo Alto looks to distance cell antennas from homes, schools

Palos Verdes, California

According to citizens of the city, after citizen uproar, Crown Castle began complying with municipal aesthetic requirements and moving proposed locations out of neighborhoods and away from homes.  The ordinance has four key components, if these are met the site will almost certainly be approved:

  • Minimal antenna size with screening
  • All accessory equipment underground (everything except the antenna)
  • Combining sites with existing vertical infrastructure (streetlights, traffic signals, etc.)
  • Strict location restrictions, no sites on local, residential streets without an exception granted

    If they don’t comply with these, then the applicant must demonstrate the site is required to fill a significant gap and there is no less intrusive alternative to receive an exception.  This is not simply checking a box (i.e. the applicant just claiming these conditions exist) but has to be demonstrated to the City planning commission via engineering analysis.

Palos Verdes, California Ordinance Chapter 12.18 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Petaluma, California

Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma

  • Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects
  • Protect visual character; don’t create visual blight
  • Protect environmental resources; protect residents against adverse health effects
  • Commercial or industrial zones
  • Antennas must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight.
  • Servicing wires must be installed within the width of the existing utility.
  • All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole.
  • Dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
  • 1,500 feet minimum between each Small Cell facility.
  • No Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
  • An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way.
  • Petaluma, California: Ordinance of the City Council of Petaluma PDF

Ross Valley, California

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

  • Modeled after Mill Valley’s
  • Adopted regulations prohibit facilities in residential and downtown zoning district.
  • Facilities proposed in the public right-of-way subject to separate design criteria.
  • Limits height and width of facilities to a minimum necessary for property function.
  • Maximum height of 24 feet above the height of the existing utility pole and 7 feet above a street light standard.
  • Requires equipment to be placed underground.

Ross Valley, California: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities PDF

San Anselmo, California 

Council Policy

  • People within 300 feet of proposed antenna will be notified 
  • Town is entitled to employ independent consultant at applicant’s expense to evaluate exceptions
  • San Anselmo, California PDF

San Diego County, California

Draft ordinance (5-31-2019) for small cell antenna sites in San Diego County has the following requirement:

“SCWs shall not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, or churches. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall be a straight line measured from the closest property lines.”

San Diego County Ordinance

San Jose, California

Negotiated agreement

“officials made improved access to areas with low internet participation a precondition for reducing fees…agreement set tiered costs per network node installation, with lower fees for companies deploying more nodes. Along with this incentive, three companies pledged to contribute a total of $24 million over the next decade to a digital inclusion fund.” (GovTech)

Suisin CA

500 ft setback  and all facilities permitted pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the ADA. 

San Anselmo, CA

300ft setback residents notified

Calabasas, CA

1000 feet setback for small cells. 

Westlake, CA

500 feet setback 

San Clemente, CA

500 feet setback 

San Rafael, California

City Council Report

Dec. 5, 2018 front page news story: https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/04/san-rafael-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/

Dec. 18, 2018  front page story:  https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/18/san-rafael-adopts-urgency-ordinance-to-keep-grip-on-5g-proliferation/

“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

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

Sonoma, California

Report and Urgency Ordinance

On Nov 5, 2018 Sonoma approved their 5G urgency ordinance.

500 ft setback and residents notified.

“Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), and take effect immediately upon adoption. Therefore, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared.”

Walnut City, California

  • “Telecommunication towers and antennas shall not be located within 1,500 feet of any school (nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school), trail, park or outdoor recreation area, sporting venues, and residential zones.”
  • Screenshot of Ordinance from Walnut Website,
  • To see the code online  go to https://qcode.us/codes/walnut/, Click on “Title 6: Planning and Zoning” Click on “Chapter 6.88 ANTENNAS AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES”, Click on “6.88.060 Design standards, See Item “O.

Warren, Connecticut 

This policy defines adequate coverage and adequate capacity. It details that it was designed “to locate towers and/or antennas in a manner which protects property values, as well as the general safety, health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Warren and all those who visit this community, minimize the total number and height of towers throughout Warren, and provide standards and requirements for the regulation, placement, design, appearance, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of telecommunications facilities and towers.” 

  • “Coverage is considered to be “adequate” within that area surrounding a Base Station where the predicted or measured median field strength of the transmitted signal is such that the majority of the time, transceivers properly installed and operated will be able to communicate with the base station.  In the case of cellular communications in a rural environment like Warren, this would be a signal strength of at least -90 dBm for at least 75% of the coverage area. It is acceptable for there to be holes within the area of Adequate Coverage where the signal is less than -90 dBm, as long as the signal regains its strength to greater than -90 dBm further away from the Base Station.” 
  • “Capacity is considered to be “adequate” if the Grade of Service (GOS) is p.05 or better for median traffic levels offered during the typical busy hour, as assessed by direct measurement of the Personal Wireless Service Facility in question.” 

TOWN OF WARREN SECTION 29 – SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: FACILITIES AND TOWERS December 11, 2012, Warren website link  

Burlington, Massachusetts

Town of Burlington Policy Applications for Small Cell Wireless Installations, October 22, 2018

  • Small Cell Committee drafted a policy with annual recertification fees. Verizon withdrew its application, concerned by the precedent it would set and questioning its legality. 
  • Verizon attorney Mr. Klasnick  stated “My client respectfully requests to withdraw the petition rather than have a fee,” he said.(BCATTV)

The Town of Burlington Policy / Application for Small Cell Wireless Installations approved by the Burlington Board of Selectmen on October 22, 2018 PDF.  

According to BCATTV Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees:

“This week Selectman Jim Tigges, the board’s representative on the Small Cells Committee, said the group had come up with a new policy for small cell applications. The policy contains a number of provisions while filing an application, including setting installation fees, listing the town department that must receive a copy for review and setting up the timeline for approval.

The Verizon application, however, would not be subject to the policy because it was submitted before its adoption. However, Tigges and the committee did have a number of conditions for the project it recommended to the board. They included:

– No apparatus on double poles

– An agreement to annual recertification

– Equipment shall be located on top of the poles, colored similarly to the polse so as to blend in.

– Equipment shall not interfere with other equipment on the pole, nor obstruct or interfere with access to or operation of street lights or traffic controls devices on the pole.

– Poles must meet ADA standards.”

-NEWS: Verizon Drops Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees, October 23, 2018

Holyoke, Massachusetts

  • Draft policy $500 fee for city inspection of rooftop poles/roofs every 2 years
  • Holyoke has submitted an order from councilor Bartley Roman to limit equipment and require $500 apiece per small cell–$500 may exceed FCC limits. At-large councilor Rebecca Lisi, on behalf of a Holyoke resident, recently submitted to the town lawyer a copy of the ordinance drafted by Pittsfield.

Information from https://www.lasttreelaws.com/ordinances.html

Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities

  • Telecom company must prove prefered site/existing structure does not work
  • Above ground aesthetic requirements
  • Sound and light restrictions with emphasis on industry proving compliance

Pittsfield, Massachusetts: Proposed Section: Wireless Communications Facilities PDF

Little Silver, New Jersey

  • Carriers should provide notice to property owners within five hundred (500’) feet of the proposed Telecommunications Facility.

New York

Ithaca , New York

Ithaca’s code  of 250 feet

  • A 1500 foot setback between antennas (old code: 0 feet)
  • A 250 foot setback between antennas and homes/schools (old code: 8 feet)
  • Requiring proof of a significant gap in service coverage for any antenna, proven by ‘in-kind’ testing (such as drive-by tests and dropped calls)
  • Clarifying that an applicant’s claim that it needs the proposed tower for “future capacity” or to “improve coverage” is not sufficient to establish that it suffers from a significant gap in coverage
  • Requring the least intrusive methods to fill any coverage gap for antennas
  • Requiring that a visual impact analysis be submitted for any new proposed antennas
  • Requiring General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion
  • Allowing for random, unannounced radiation testing for all towers done by the City at the expense of the applicant
  • Including fall-zone requirements that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient distance from other structures and the general public
  • Allowing for revocability (a clause allowing the voiding of any contract requiring its modification in the event of a regulatory change)
  • Mandating certified mail notices of any proposed tower be sent to people living near a proposed site before approval, paid for by the applicant.
  • Establishing a procedure for any disabled persons suffering from EHS to submit requests/grievances in accordance with the ADA
  • Establishing that the codes apply to all wireless transmitting antennas, including any on private homes (aimed at the OTARD challenge)
  • Deputizing any citizen to test for RF emissions
  • Protecting against reductions in property values of properties situated near wireless facilities
  • Requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of perjury

  • Download PDF of Ithaca code here.

 

Scarsdale, New York

Scarsdale, New York Passed a Wireless Ordinance To Limit Cell Antennas 500 Feet From Homes, Schools and Daycares

  1. Pre- and post-installation RF testing requirements by independent contractor; additionally, routine annual monitoring
  2. Pre-notification of small cell application to residents within a 1,000-foot radius of proposed installation
  3. Pre-notification of small cell application to President-At-Large of the neighborhood association and to the president of neighborhood association in which the wireless facility is proposed
  4. Location preferences (restricted zones) that require special exceptions for installations
    • Any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit
    • Any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or school
    • Any location within 500 feet from a house of worship
    • Any location within parkland
  5. Village is insured against any liability for personal injury or property damage or claims pertaining to RF exposure
  6. Existence of appeals process (de novo hearing in front of Planning Board)

 

Copake New York

(Link to Copake NY code)

Pretesting and post testing by RF engineer

Annual monitoring of RF emissions by the independent RF engineer using actual field measurements

Hempstead, New York

Wireless Communications Facilities

Mason, Ohio

Zoning Ordinance – Wireless Communications Systems

  • No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of property used for residential use
  • Small cells must be 2000 feet apart (unless colocated)
  • Small cells are between 20-30 ft high (may be able to exceed 30 ft if colocated)
  • Every attempt shall be made to locate small cells on existing structures; if not available, within public right of way 
  • All related equipment should be underground or wholly contained so not visible
  • Each facility shall consist of no more than 1 antenna/user and capable of providing communication for at least 2 users

Mason, Ohio Zoning Ordinance PDF

Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Zoning Changes via Ordinance 9-2016

  • City Council rushed through zoning changes to declare many streets off limits to new poles (said they could be much taller than existing ones)
  • Public Utility Commission stripped Mobilitie and other distributed-antenna companies of utility status, meaning that they would not get any more “certificates of public convenience” in Pennsylvania.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 9-2016 PDF

News Stories

  • http://www.philly.com/philly/business/comcast/philly-and-suburbs-brace-for-attack-of-the-small-cells-20170601.html?arc404=true
  • http://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/Philadelphia-Braces-For-Small-Cell-Future.html

 

Note: This list was compiled from EHT research of various sources and a special thank you to Physicians for Safe Technology, My Streets My Choice and Last Tree Laws for their extensive resources. Please contact EHT to add your Cities information. 

 

 

Download EHT’s Expert Briefings on 5G and Cell Towers 

  • Scientific Briefing on 5G and Cell towers
  • Policy Briefing on Local Ordinances for 5G, Wireless Antennas and Cell Towers
  • Note: Please send comments and updates to info@ehtrust.org if your country has actions not represented here.