Protective Small Cell Wireless Ordinance Language Examples
Center for Electrosmog Prevention
A collection of suggested requirements for ordinances to gain maximum protection from
small cell wireless (and other) telecommunications facilities in residential and sensitive areas
Up-to-date Resources (Fall, 2019)
City Letter Stop 5G Wireless Ordinance This letter is designed for 5G-concerned residents to send to their cities, requesting an informational 5G workshop and suggesting ordinance language ideas to slow or stop 5G in their cities. It may be downloaded as a Word doc and personalized.
EHT webpage on Protective US City Ordinances (Environmental Health Trust) “that attempt to minimize the small cell roll out in neighborhoods. EHT has compiled ordinances from around the country that you can download and use in your city. This page is critical to provide to your city officials who are interested in what other cities are doing.”
5G Toolkit (includes Sample Small Cell Wireless Municipal Ordinance Code)
Physicians for Safer Technology Includes Key Points of protective small cell and cell tower wireless ordinances and many links to current protective ordinances
City of Calabasis, CA Current Wireless Ordinance
———————————————–
1. Northern California municipalities who’ve recently taken action through ordinances to stop 5G and other small cell/cell tower installations.
Novato, CA: “Some of the [4G and 5G] restrictions the council will be vetting include whether to ban small cell installations in residential areas or streets; requiring setbacks from schools, hospitals and other areas; visual and viewshed protections; permitting requirements; notification of residents; and creating a committee to “study the viability of a fiber optic network,” according to Eklund’s report.”
“… Novato-based attorney Harry Lehmann provided a letter to the City Council on Tuesday outlining his arguments in favor of banning 5G technology in Novato, saying it would be “morally wrong” to allow it.
“5G does not create a ‘risk’ of injury, like some essential medicines, because the participation of our bodies in microwave saturation is not a choice,” Lehmann wrote. “5G thus creates a constant hazard*, not just a risk of injury.”” [*emphasis added by CEP]
Letter of Feb. 21, 2019 by Atty Harry Lehmann to Marin County Supervisors
Fairfax, CA: https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/uploads/2018/10/Ord-819-URGENCYsmall-cell.pdf
Petaluma, CA:
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2018/07/petaluma-sets-cell-phone-tower-policy/
City of Mill Valley, CA:
https://www.marinij.com/2018/09/09/mill-valley-joins-effort-to-constrain-5g-proliferation/
San Rafael, Mill Valley, Ross, San Anselmo and Fairfax, CA
https://www.marinij.com/2018/10/27/ross-valley-officials-work-to-tighten-5g-antenna-rules/
2. Protect Trees: 5G installations will cause millions of trees to be cut down or have their canopies sharply pruned.
This is because the signal needs a line-of-sight to be viable. No foliage can block it. Do you want trees along the street or at the edge of your yard cut down or halved? This is why Sierra Club of Washington DC has opposed 5G. This factor alone can be incorporated into local ordinances, to protect the trees.
3. A Model Wireless Ordinance for Siting of Wireless Small Cells – by Americans for Safe Technology. This is a draft ordinance intended to be a sample and model for educational purposes only.
4. The EH Trust has put up a page with examples of helpful local ordinances to stop 5G installations.
Click USA City Ordinances to Limit and Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells in Rights of Ways
5. Physicians for Safe Technology has examples of wireless ordinances, as well as a host of resources. Cell tower and city ordinances
6. Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Our Neighborhood) recommends local municipalities consider these reasons for denying cell tower applications in residential areas, which may be adapted for use with the 5G small cells network:
Outdated federal regulations prevent cities from denying permits based on health adverse health effects alone. There are other good reasons to say “No”, including:
Property values:
Studies show homes that are located next to or near cell towers decrease in property value. Local and area real estate professionals and appraisers have also confirmed this to be true. In addition, a proposed cell tower must be disclosed for properties surrounding the proposed location. Would you want to buy a home near a cell tower? Did you move into your dream home only to have a cell tower built right next to it? A commercial cell tower that looks like a fake tree is thus bad business — for residential property owners, real estate businesses, and the City (decreased property tax revenue).
[Aesthetics] Blight: a cell tower disguised to look like a pine tree is unaesthetic and doesn’t fit in with the beautiful and scenic character of our neighborhood and park; it will also denigrate cherished views for some of the residents that would live near it
[Public Safety]
Public safety #1: Cell towers have attracted criminals and vandals (copper thefts), and we don’t need or want to increase the risk of crime in our neighborhood. This is why these commercial facilities are best suited away from homes and schools and parks.
Public safety #2: Cell towers have also caught on fire during routine maintenance. In fire country, this is another reason why we don’t need a cell tower so close to our homes, schools and parks.
Public safety #3: Cell towers could also topple over due to high winds and earthquakes, yet more reasons why they’re better suited for commercial/industrial areas.
Public safety #4: Cell towers are also accompanied with back-up generators that are powered with batteries composed of hazardous materials, that are again, better suited for a commercial area. [DO 5G SMALL CELLS HAVE HAZARDOUS, POTENTIALLY EXPOSIVE LITHIUM BATTERIES?]
Public safety #5: The California Public Utilities Commission is concerned about them as fire hazards and is currently in the process of proposing new rules and regulations for them, because utility poles overloaded with communications equipment were believed to have contributed to starting the Malibu Fires.
In fact, our zoning regulations and city’s general plan say that cell towers aren’t typically allowed in R-1 residential zones, and the hillside area in particular needs its views and natural environment preserved. The way T-mobile is trying to get around this is by putting it on public/city (BWP) property.
We already have good coverage here. If you have adequate [wireless company] coverage, tell City Council because then it’s proof that we don’t need [wireless company’s] antenna in our neighborhood. We also did our own survey with a [wireless company] phone and were able to make and receive quality calls in and around the proposed cell tower location.
Tell City Council they need to have [wireless company] offer several other feasible and available options and locations like other cities now require cell tower applicants to prepare; also ask City Council to find and suggest other feasible and available options and locations to [wireless company].
Tell City officials that we need a strong ordinance like Glendale just approved, with a tiered approach and addressing cell towers installed on our telephone and utility poles in public rights of way.
Residents in other cities have recently gotten together to protest and provide their city officials with legitimate reasons to deny a cell tower from being built in their neighborhood, so we can do this, too! “
Comments are closed.