CC 12-03-2024 Oral CommunicationsCC 12-03-2024
Oral
Communications
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Cc:B Lau
Subject:Fw: Small Cell Tower Site
Date:Monday, December 2, 2024 3:23:50 AM
Attachments:wireless_telecommunications_ordinance_draft_2022.pdf
wireless_telecommunications_design_guidelines_resolution_draft_2022-compressed.pdf
Please include this email and its attachments for the written communication for the 12/3
council meeting.
Thanks!
Get Outlook for iOS
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 4:58 PM
To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Fw: Small Cell Tower Site
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Council Member Liang:
Thank you so much for forwarding my concern.
As an addendum, I would like to further propose the City of Cupertino a) public their small
cell ordinance on their website like the City of Los Altos
(see https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/small-cell-nodes) and b) create a detailed
ordinance initiated and managed by Public Works if one does not already exist (see attached
Los Altos examples from their website). This is a very well defined ordinance that has
defined priority areas and regulations.
If no ordinance exists for Cupertino, then it is imperative the City creates a set of acceptable
standards as there currently is no reference on Cupertino's own website
(https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/permitting-development-
services/small-cell-information) compared to the Los Altos example.
As further reference, the City of Palo Alto also publishes a website from Planning and
Development on their wireless standards and ordinance here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-
Planning/Ordinances-Maps-Guidelines-Standards/Wireless-Communication-Facilities
I think both cities are benchmarks for Cupertino to review and potentially emulate as best
practices going forward. The current web page is a good start but seems to fall short on
ordinance / code information; I was most interested in reviewing the code and understanding
the setback requirements. I look forward to the City Council reviewing the current
requirements (and the potential lack of a well-defined ordinance like Los Altos and Palo Alto)
considering the proliferation of small cell nodes will only increase in the future.
Regards,
Brion
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:45 PM Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> wrote:
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for the
upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record unless a
councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication and its attachments as written communication
for the upcoming council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that community
voices are included in written communications of council meetings as requested, rather than
at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently leave out some minority
voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:44 PM
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Public Works - Engineering Div <engineering@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Small Cell Tower Site
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Council Members:
Based on the city's website and posted information on small cell towers below, it appears the
last public meeting was in 2021 when Darcy Paul was mayor.
Since then, the # of cell #s has increased across Cupertino exponentially including a pending
permit on Bubb Road outside Kennedy Middle School.
Reference: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/permitting-
development-services/small-cell-information
It also appears Verizon has spent quite a bit of $$$ and previously hired the legal firm
MacKenzie & Albritton LLP to represent its interest on May 24, 2021.
I strongly consider the council members to allow numerous small cell towers across
Cupertino especially in residentially zones and directly adjacent to public schools. Please
see the published flyer related to concerns and studies related to the impact of 5G wireless.
The attached flyer is more comprehensive and helps the public make a fully informed
decision as opposed to what your staff members posted on the City's small cell tower
section, positioning such devices as safe (according to other experts). At best this is
misleading due to only sharing partial information (https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/public-works/permitting-development-services/small-cell-information) in
the FAQs.
I urge you to add this to an upcoming council meeting and explore alternative ways to
satisfy the carrier's requirements without infringing on our residential rights and safety.
Regards,
Brion Lau
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Addendum:
Here is a useful link for information on 5G and cell towers from the Environmental Health
Trust.
https://ehtrust.org/liability-and-risk-from-5g-and-cell-towers/
At the bottom of the article are links to counter-arguments and research stating 5G is safe
and low levels of radiation. The fact is there is no long-term study and the fact that
insurance will not cover this risk should say enough.
Thank you.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:03 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members:
Please see the email below originally addressed to Planning and Public Works
departments.
I should have copied you on the original protest.
Please consider relocating the installation to an alternate site acceptable to the carrier
such as the screenshot provided.
Thank you,
Brion
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Small Cell Tower Site
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: <engineering@cupertino.org>
Screenshot attached with the location of a potential alternate location.
Or, at the very least, please relocate this to another area that would minimize RF
exposure and impact.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:41 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team,
I just met a contractor doing a site analysis on the streetlight outside 21600 Rainbow
Drive. He mentioned they are planning to install a small cell tower on this streetlight
for a public carrier such as Verizon.
I am concerned about this site in particular because my family, neighbors and I will be
subjected to constant RF (radio frequency) waves that could potentially be harmful to
our health especially those of us within 400 meters of this small cell tower.
I realize the City is allowing these towers but previously they were located closer to
the retail corridors with high traffic. This location is directly within a neighborhood
with no local businesses nearby.
Besides the long-term health risks, any argument that we need improved signal is
misleading. Many of us who live in this area use Wi-Fi calling and do not depend on
cell signal or strength alone.
Please relocate this small cell tower elsewhere 400 meters away from this site. My
suggestion is to use the utility structure at the top of Fremont Older Preserve (see
attached). The elevation is higher and this is further away from residential homes
instead of right in the middle of our neighborhood.
I would also like to understand how far along this is in the planning process and if
permits have been issued. If so, please provide a copy of the site analysis and whether
or not the operator has an FCC exemption (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-I/section-1.1307) under section B.
I appreciate your consideration and assistance ensuring our long-term neighborhood
health remains a top priority over commercial concerns for such an installation.
Regards,
Brion Lau
Ph: (408) 219-6415
1
RESOLUTION No. 2022-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALTOS ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
A.Pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; California Government
Code § 37100 and other applicable law, the City 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.
B.It is in the public interest for the City to establish reasonable, uniform and comprehensive
design and siting guidelines for the installation of wireless facilities . The City having previously
established design guidelines pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-35 adopted on August 5, 2019
(hereinafter “the Existing Design Guidelines”), now wishes to rescind the Existing Design
Guidelines and replace them with new design guidelines set forth below in the Appendix as
discussed below in Section 2 (“New Design Guidelines”), in order to protect the City of Los
Altos and its aesthetics and preserve the public health and safety of the community.
C.These New Design Guidelines are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and
promote public health, safety and welfare, and also balance the benefits that flow from wireless
services with the City's local rules which include, without limitation, the aesthetic character of the
City, its neighborhoods and community.
D.Los Altos’ public rights-of-way are a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked
with the City’s rural character and natural beauty. Los Altos has a population of 30,000 and is
suburban community near Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semi-rural atmosphere –
with wooded, quiet low-density single-family homes. The regulation of wireless communication
facilities both within the public right-of-way and other locations within the City, is necessary to
protect and preserve the aesthetics of the community. The City’s General Plan also provides for
the undergrounding of new telephone and utility lines, “maintaining the low density, low profile
residential character of the community through zoning regulations and design guidelines,” and
“ensuring compatibility between residential and non-residential development through zoning
regulations and design review.” The City’s concerns for preservation of its community including
public safety, visual impact, and aesthetics relate to preserving the residential character of the
community by imposing these New Design Guidelines that relate to location, camouflaging,
height, size and spacing of wireless telecommunications facilities. As well, the New Design
Guidelines also provide separation between wireless telecommunications facilities and the front
of homes along permitted rights-of-way within residential zones serves to reduce the
intrusiveness of any new wireless telecommunications facilities.
E.The City is mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the
community which includes amongst other things, limiting wireless site visibility and impacts to
2
the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing same against the need for sufficient cell
coverage for emergency needs and complying with both federal and state laws. These New
Design Guidelines are particularly focused on minimizing visibility from residences,
encouraging undergrounding of utilities, and limiting the height of such facilities to be consistent
with the single-family residences that predominate the housing stock of Los Altos. In keeping
with these goals, these New Design Guidelines serve to ensure the preservation of the local
residential areas.
F. These New Design Guidelines serve to help minimize and/or alleviate possible threats to
the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Los Altos, including but not limited to,
potential disturbance to the right-of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless
telecommunication 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/or towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from
excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless telecommunications 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, all of which has the potential to yield serious negative
impacts on the unique quality and character of Los Altos.
G. The reasonably regulated and orderly development of wireless telecommunication
facilities in the public-right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly development
represents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the Los Altos community.
H. The City’s beauty is an important reason for businesses to locate in the City and for
residents to live here. The City’s economy, as well as the health and well-being of all who visit,
work or live in the City, depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty. The City has been
moving towards the undergrounding of various utilities, including the First Street and Lincoln
Park Undergrounding Utility projects, and needs to ensure that this effort is not hindered by the
addition of numerous wireless telecommunications facilities cabinet, wires, cables, and bulky
equipment that visually impede and clutter the City’s public rights of way. The New Design
Guidelines serve to encourage the reduction of all appurtenant equipment, screening of same,
and efforts at undergrounding.
I. The City Council takes legislative notice of the various federal court decisions and FCC
Order that have recognized the City’s ability to impose the New Design Guidelines to protect the
aesthetics of Los Altos. In fact, the FCC Order goes on to state that local 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
permissible. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 (2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, City of
3
Portland v United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1032 (9th Cir. 2020) and see also Sprint PCS v. City of
Palos Verdes Estates (2009) 583 F.3d 716.
J.The City acknowledges that there has been an ever-increasing demand for the placement
of wireless telecommunication facilities within the public rights of way, in order to offer
increased coverage in the way of numerous expanding technologies such as: cell phones, video
streaming, and on line access to work from home during the COVID -19 pandemic. In
connection with the ever increasing demand for expanding technologies, the City is also mindful
of the carriers desire to move forward with 5G and the potential increase in applications for
wireless facilities within this small suburban community has the potential to greatly impact the
quality of life and the bucolic nature of the community.
K.The overarching intent of the New Design Guidelines is to make wireless
telecommunications reasonably available while preserving the essential rural character of Los
Altos. The New Design Guidelines will foster such by minimizing the visual and physical effects
of wireless telecommunications facilities through appropriate design, screening techniques and
location standards; and encouraging the installation of such facilities where and in a manner such
that potential adverse impacts to Los Altos is minimized.
L.The City adopted its Current Design Guidelines back in August of 2019. This occurred
after the City held a study session and several public hearings, at which stakeholders discussed
wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues, and expressed their design and location
preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views and the essential
local values that make Los Altos a uniquely small suburban community. The City’s residents in
the summer of 2019 called out the numerous concerns at play with aesthetics, and these concerns
included numerous objections that were focused on visual blight such as:
•Small cell nodes previously proposed by carriers, AT&T and Verizon, to the City
of Los Altos were visually intrusive and unsightly;
•The City should continue to be judicious about and distaste for visual blight;
•The need to eliminate visual blight;
•The need to consider potential visual blight, to mitigate noise and heat;
•Wireless facilities should be regulated in order to preserve Los Altos’
neighborhood aesthetic guidelines;
•Cell towers or small cells are unsightly, noisy and add to the visual blight from the
existing electric and telephone lines;
•Cell towers are ugly and there is no need for extra eye sores;
•The mounting of "small" refrigerator-sized boxes on the side of an existing utility
poles is unsightly and adds to visual blight; and
•The cell tower is an eye sore that emits an annoying fan type noise that has a
negative impact on the quality of life of the residents who live there or who walk
within the community.
These same concerns as to visual blight, aesthetic impairment and noise remain at play today.
4
SECTION 2. DESIGN GUIDELINES: REPEAL OF PRIOR RESOLUTION.
The City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2019-35 on August 5, 2019. The
Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 2019-35 in its entirety.
SECTION 3. NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES.
The City Council hereby adopts the New Design Guidelines set forth in the Appendix,
which New Design Guidelines are incorporated with this Resolution
SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS
The definitions set forth in Section 11.12.020 of the Municipal Code are incorporated by
reference into this Resolution. In addition, the Appendix provides definitions for “Small Cell
Facility” and Underground Areas.”
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or circumstances is
held invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the
Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
extend, the provisions of this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and cause it, or a summary of
it to be published as required by law. This Resolution shall become effective the same date that
it is adopted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Alto
this ___ day of ______________, 2022.
______________________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
__________________________
Attest: Andrea Chelemengos
City Clerk
5041860.3
1/20/2022 9:05 PM
1
APPENDIX TO CITY OF LOS ALTOS RESOLUTION 2022-___
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
I.Definitions
A.Small Cell Facility: shall have the same meaning as “small wireless facility” in 47
C.F.R. 1.60020), or any successor provision (which is a personal wireless services facility that
meets the following conditions that, solely for convenience, have been set forth below):
1.The facility-
a. is mounted on a structure 50 feet or less in height, including antennas, as defined in
47 C.F.R. Section 1.1320(d), or
b.is mounted on a structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent
structures, or
c.does not extend an existing structure on which it is located to a height
of more than 50 feet 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 47 C.F.R.
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 facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47
C.F.R. Part 17;
5.The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F. R.
Section 800.16(x); and
6.The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency
radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47
C.F.R. Section 1.1307(6).
B.Underground areas: Those areas where there are no electrical facilities or facilities
of the incumbent local exchange cattier in tl1e right of way; or where the wires associated
witl1 the same are or are required to be located underground; or where the same are
scheduled to be converted from overhead to underground. Electrical facilities are
distribution facilities owned by an electric utility and do not include transmission
facilities used or intended to be used to transmit electricity at nominal voltages in excess
of 35,000 volts.
2
II. Design And Development Standards for all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines to applicants and the City
that prescribe clear, reasonable, and predictable design criteria to reduce visual and land use
impacts associated with wireless telecommunication facilities in the City. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to permit a wireless telecommunication facility in any location or
configuration that it is otherwise prohibited by the City’s locational and development standards
found in Chapter 14.82.
B. Basic Design Principles. 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 and the
following basic principles.
1. Impact Minimization. The overall impacts of a wireless telecommunications facility
shall be minimized in relation to aesthetic, land use, noise, traffic, and other
considerations. Although this is generally accomplished with the smallest feasible
design for any given facility, a larger facility may sometimes be appropriate if it is
well concealed, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and can reduce the
overall number of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service
within the City.
2. Integration and Concealment. Integration and concealment of a wireless
telecommunications facility and its resulting visibility are a function of site context as
well as the design and placement of a facility on a specific site.
a. Overall, new wireless
telecommunications
facilities and modifications
to existing facilities shall be
visually integrated into their
sites and as hidden from
view as feasible.
b. Non-integrated
(unconcealed) installations
are less preferred and
permitted only where an
integrated (concealed)
facility is either infeasible or
would reduce the number
and overall visual
intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities required to provide service
within the City.
Figure 1: This well-concealed wireless telecommunications facility
has its antennas architecturally integrated into the building.
3
c. Complete concealment (e.g., no visible exterior equipment) is preferred over other
methods.
d. Covering or painting antennas and equipment does not necessarily mean they are
well-concealed and must be evaluated based on their actual ability to conceal the
facility. Factors to be considered include the visibility of exterior pole equipment
on a pole regardless of its color and concealment methods (antenna skirts,
fiberglass paneling, fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] boxes, etc.) themselves.
e. RF safety barriers shall be the least visible barrier feasible. When feasible,
striping and restricted access shall be used instead of posts, chains, and/or
fencing. When barriers must be visible, building materials should be integrated
into the design of the facility and its adjacent surroundings.
f. Any feature that is represented on plans and photo simulations submitted to the
City as providing concealment (adjacent landscaping, paint colors, architectural
elements, etc.) shall be present for the life of the project, and therefore need to be
within the applicant’s control.
g. Future modifications to a site or facility reduce concealment that was provided
with the initial installation shall not be permitted unless no feasible alternative
exists, or the proposed modification involves colocation and an overall reduction
of the visual intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities within the
City.
3. Context. Specific situations require specific design solutions. What integrates well
into one site and conceals a wireless telecommunications facility might not be
appropriate for another situation. Proposed designs shall therefore be evaluated based
on the following considerations.
a. Concealment behind a parapet might be a good design solution; however, designs
that raise the parapet or only a portion of the parapet might not be.
b. Façade-mounted antennas or a cupola might be appropriate for certain styles of
architecture, but not for others.
c. Placement of a wireless telecommunications facility on an existing pole or a
replacement pole might or might not be visually unobtrusive, depending on the
extent to which the facility adds to the height of the pole and the presence and
extent of external equipment and cabling added to the pole.
d. Placement of a new pole within a street right-of-way might or might not be
appropriate depending on the location of any nearby utility poles, streetlights, or
traffic signals.
e. Placement of a new pole on a property outside of a right-of-way (such as on a new
flagpole) might or might not be appropriate depending on its design and location
in relation to buildings and other onsite features.
4
f. A wireless telecommunications facility that fits into its context (e.g., a faux tree
within an area having existing trees) is generally more integrated (concealed) than
one that does not (e.g., a faux tree in the middle of a non-landscaped parking lot
or a faux tree that is poorly designed or of a species not otherwise present in the
area).
g. New wireless telecommunications facilities are generally appropriate as a means
of reducing the overall number of facilities within the community but might be
visually intrusive depending on their height, design, and placement.
C. No Speculative Facilities. A wireless telecommunications facility, telecommunications
collocation facility, or telecommunications tower that is built on speculation and for which there
is no wireless tenant shall be prohibited within the City.
D. General Guidelines.
1. Concealment. Each facility shall be designed to be as visually inconspicuous as
feasible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area, and to conceal
the facility from predominant views from surrounding properties, all in a manner that
achieves compatibility with the community.
a. Cabling and equipment should be concealed wherever feasible. Where cabling
and/or equipment cannot feasibly be fully concealed from public view, they
should be designed and located so as to minimize their visual intrusiveness.
2. Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to
avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety.
a. Any wireless telecommunications facility attachments placed less than 16 feet
above ground level shall not be placed closer than 18 inches to a curb, nor shall
they extend over a sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309).
b. All wireless telecommunications facility equipment shall maintain at least 3 feet
separation from any curb cut.
3. 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 to reduce visual impact without compromising their function. Whip
antennas need not be screened.
5
4. Landscaping.
a. 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 the landscaping is used for screening.
b. The wireless telecommunications facility’s design shall be consistent with the
existing and/or proposed landscape design of the adjacent site, using a similar or
complementary plant palette.
c. Existing, mature trees shall be retained when feasible. Any existing landscaping
removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind.
d. 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. Landscaping to screen wireless
telecommunications facilities shall not, however, block the lines of sight and
create hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
e. Any proposed underground vaults shall be designed and constructed so as to
protect existing street trees, including roots within the tree’s drip line.
(1) A report from an experienced arborist shall be provided to the City upon
request confirming the tree’s root system has been adequately protected.
f. Landscaping proposed to screen, conceal, complement, or soften the visual
intrusiveness of a wireless telecommunications facility shall remain for the life of
the permit, even if not located within the applicant’s lease area. Adequate
provisions shall be entered into with property owners to ensure that required
landscaping is not removed, and that it is properly maintained. Landscaping
outside the applicant’s control is generally not considered to provide concealment,
but concealment provided by such landscaping can be considered on a case-by-
case basis.
5. Signage. Wireless telecommunications facilities and wireless telecommunications
collocation facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, watting, or other signage required by law or permitted by the City.
6. Lighting. A wireless telecommunications facility shall not be illuminated unless
lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
government agency, or the lighting is in association with the illumination of an
athletic field on City or school property. Lighting 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.
6
7. Noise.
a. Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications
collocation facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any
disruption caused by noise.
b. At no time shall any facility be permitted to generate noise exceeding 45 dBA
except for backup generators operated during periods of power outages.
c. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and
shall not be tested on weekends, on holidays, or on weekdays between the hours
of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise from backup generators shall not exceed the
noise levels specified in Municipal Code Chapter 6.16.
d. Where feasible, passive louvers and/or other passive ventilation shall be provided
as the primary means of temperature control.
8. 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 City
may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other
techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of its
location or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance.
The applicant shall cover any costs associated with the techniques described herein.
9. Modification of Existing Equipment. At the time of modification of a wireless
telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be
modified or replaced to reduce visual, noise, and other impacts. This shall include the
reduction of the size of the ground cabinet and/or replacement with an underground
vault. Examples include, but are not limited to, undergrounding the equipment or
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive
facilities.
II. Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities Outside of the Public
Right-of-Way and Public Utility Easements.
A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located outside the public right-of-way and public utility
easements are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in
addition to the design and development standards that apply to all facilities (Section 4).
B. Preferred Designs.
1. Façade-Concealed Antennas. Façade-concealed antennas have antennas, mounting
apparatus, and any associated components fully concealed from all sides within a
structure that achieves complete architectural integration with the existing building
(for example, antennas behind fiber-reinforced plastic [FRP] in a parapet, and
7
equipment inside an
existing building), or within
outbuildings that are
architecturally integrated
into a site and are expected
components of the setting.
This preferred installation
type has the following
additional characteristics.
a. Cables and cable trays
are completely hidden
from view with cables
routed internally or
buried underground.
(1) Exterior cable trays
designed to replicate an existing vertical element may be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
(2) Standard cable trays painted and textured to match the existing building are
indicative of a façade-mounted facility rather than the preferred façade-
concealed facility.
b. Equipment and equipment areas shall be completely hidden.
(1) Associated equipment shall be completely concealed inside an existing
building, inside an underground vault, or by the same method as the antennas
(RRUs, RRHs, surge suppressors, and similar).
(2) Screen walls, fences, and
prefabricated facilities are
generally not indicative
of building-concealed
facilities; however,
equipment enclosures
designed to replicate
existing buildings and
structures may be
considered on a case-by-
case basis. This guideline
shall apply to any
existing or proposed
mechanical equipment
that serves the wireless
Figure 2: This completely concealed wireless telecommunications facility,
including antennas, is cited in the City of San Diego's Land
Development Manual in its guidelines for wireless communications
facilities.
Figure 3: Antennas are concealed behind the circular element.
8
telecommunications facility, including, but not limited to, generators, air
conditioning units, and similar equipment.
c. FRPs shall be both textured and painted to match adjacent building faces. Paint
and texture should match completely.
d. There should be no noticeable transitions (e.g., seams or differences in paint or
texture) between FRP and adjacent surfaces.
e. If concealed within a parapet, the top, sides, and rear of antennas and associated
components shall also be enclosed or otherwise screened from view. No wireless
telecommunications facility components, including antenna, mounting apparatus,
cabling, or equipment, should be visible.
f. If a project extends the parapet upward, the extensions should have symmetry in
all visible dimensions. Antennas and concealment elements shall not dominate the
element on which they are placed.
2. Faux Architectural Elements. Faux architectural elements are existing or proposed
architectural elements on a building that completely conceal antennas. They are
distinguished from façade-
concealed antennas in that
they appear to be
architectural elements of a
building.
a. This preferred installation
type may take a variety of
forms, such as tower
elements and cupolas.
Architectural integration
may also include tapered
columns (which may hide
façade-mounted antennas
individually), wing walls,
dormers, statues, façade-
mounted signage, and
other elements.
b. This preferred installation
type shall be appropriate
to the architectural
context and have the
following additional
characteristics:
Figure 4: A cupola (above) and a clock tower (below) conceal antennas.
9
(1) Design that matches the style of the building and is designed as a feature
commonly found on the type or style of building upon which the element is
proposed; and
(2) Colors and textures that match the existing building, including finishing
features such as reveals, windows, tapers, cornices, tiling, roofing materials,
and trim.
c. Antennas and related equipment shall not encroach from a building into the public
right-of way or onto an adjacent property.
3. Rooftop Concealment. If accessory equipment for roof-mounted facilities cannot be
installed inside the building or underground, 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. Rooftop facilities that appear to be a building façade, architectural
element, or parapet are considered to be façade-concealed, façade-mounted, or faux
architectural facilities. Rooftop concealment is considered to be a preferred design
where façade integration is not feasible.
a. Roof-mounted facilities shall be designed and constructed to be fully concealed or
screened in a manner compatible in color, texture, and type of material with the
existing architecture of the building on which the facility is mounted. Screening
shall not increase the bulk of the structure nor alter the character of the structure.
(1) 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) Rooftop concealment shall be appropriate to the architectural setting,
matching the colors and textures of existing building (including features such
as reveals, cornices, tiling, roofing materials, and trim), and shall be designed
as a feature commonly found on the type or style of building upon which the
facility is proposed.
(3) Integration into existing rooftop elements is preferred over creating new
rooftop elements unless integration would be architecturally undesirable.
(4) The height of rooftop screening shall not exceed the maximum height
permitted by the zoning district within which the facility is located.
(5) Roof-mounted wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be visible from
any side and may need to be concealed from the top if adjacent structures are
taller and have views onto the roof where wireless telecommunications
facilities are proposed to be mounted.
(6) Equipment located on the roof of an existing structure shall be set back or
located to minimize visibility, especially from the public right of-way or
10
viewing locations accessible to the public. Rooftop screening elements will
generally need to be set back from the roof edge at least as far as they are tall.
(7) Rooftop screening shall not dominate a façade. For example, an antenna
screen that approaches the height of a building story and runs most of the
length of a façade containing windows would substantially increase building
height but not appear as part of the structure. In this case, it would be more
desirable to extend the parapet and make the building itself appear taller.
b. Unconcealed rooftop installations such as lattice towers, monopoles, and rack
mounts that are visible from the public right-of-way or viewing locations
accessible to the public shall not be permitted.
4. Architecturally Designed Stand-Alone Towers. Towers that are designed to appear
as buildings or signs, and that conceal antennas completely within them, may be
permitted where appropriate to the site on which they are proposed. Examples
include, but are not limited to, clock towers and obelisks.
a. Architecturally designed stand-alone towers shall be of high-quality design and
provide variation in planes, textures, colors, or treatments to avoid the look of a
simple box.
b. Clock towers shall have a functioning clock at all times.
c. A separate sign permit may be required for any onsite sign used to conceal
antennas.
d. A wireless telecommunications facility permit may not be used to request signage
that does not comply with Municipal Code standards for signage.
5. Athletic Field Lights. The guidelines in this section are for lights used to illuminate
large areas for the purposes of recreation. For lights used to illuminate the immediate
area for pedestrian or driver safety, see Section C.4, Parking Lot Light Standards,
below.
a. Antennas shall be mounted as close as possible to the pole and within an antenna
shroud that conceals the antennas and any associated components. No wireless
telecommunications facility component except the antenna shroud shall be visibly
mounted to a pole.
b. Antennas and mounting components shall be painted the same color as the pole.
c. All cables and conduit to and from the light standard shall be routed from the
caisson up into the pole. Cable coverings may be permitted in limited
circumstances where they would be minimally visible.
d. When a wireless telecommunications facility is proposed on a field with no
existing lighting or no functional lighting, the applicant shall provide additional
lighting as required to provide a functionally illuminated sports field. Partial
lighting of a sports field is not acceptable.
11
C. Other Permitted Designs.
1. Façade-Mounted Antennas. Façade-mounted antennas are any antennas mounted on
the exterior of a building that are not faux architectural elements. Façade- mounted
antennas shall:
a. Employ a symmetrical, balanced design.
(1) No interruption of architectural lines or horizontal or vertical reveals should
occur.
(2) Antennas should be no longer or wider than the façade on which they are
proposed and shall not encroach into window areas or protrude above or
below the surface on which they are mounted.
(3) Antennas should be mounted with their tops at the roofline unless there is an
obstacle, or unless to do so would decrease concealment.
b. Use the smallest mounting brackets available to provide the smallest offset from
the building.
c. Limit the distance from the front of the antenna (or antenna shroud/FRP) to the
face of the building to 12 inches. Panel antennas may be mounted up to 18 inches
away from a building façade when the applicant provides evidence demonstrating
that the wireless communication facility cannot operate without incorporating a
tilt greater than 12 inches.
d. Fit each antenna into the design of an existing façade, with each antenna being no
longer or wider than the portion of the façade upon which it is mounted. The
antennas should not interrupt the architectural lines of the façade.
e. Conceal associated
mounting brackets
and cable from
view. Any pipes or
similar apparatus
used to attach panel
antennas to a
building façade
shall not extend
beyond the length
or width of the
panel antenna.
Measurements may
be verified during
inspection.
Figure 5: Although façade-mounted boxes are not preferred, this example from
San Diego achieves integration with the structure.
12
f. If a façade-mounted facility dominates a façade element, use façade-mounted
FRP boxes that look like an extension of the façade.
g. If not covered by an FRP box, use skirts and chin covers to conceal mounting
hardware, create a cleaner appearance, and minimize visual impact. Chin covers
shall be designed to replicate the antenna profile. Transitions between antennas
and screening devices should not be visible (no gaps). Antennas should appear to
be the same length, width, and depth, spaced uniformly.
h. Match the color and texture of concealment measures to adjacent building
surfaces, including includes trim, reveals, lines, and similar features. No visible
transition lines or gaps should occur.
i. Avoid exposed cabling.
j. If not covered by an FRP box, provide a unified appearance. If antennas differ in
shape or size, they should all be given unified dimensions using skirts and chin
straps spaced uniformly across a façade.
k. Locate ventilation openings on the top or bottom of screening elements only.
l. Not encroach from a building into the public right-of way or onto an adjacent
property.
2. Faux Trees. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be designed to emulate trees
where trees similar in size and species are present. Faux trees may also be appropriate
when natural trees of similar species are
planted concurrent with faux tree
installation, depending on the density
and size of trees being planted.
a. Faux trees shall be of a type and
size to adequately conceal antennas
within them while appearing
natural.
(1) Faux trees shall replicate the
shape, structure, and color of
live trees, and be designed to
look like the tree species they
intend to replicate (e.g., a faux
pine tree shall be shaped like a
pine tree). Branching shall not
make the tree look top-heavy or
unnatural. Figure 6: In this example, antennas are concealed by the
faux "mono-pine."
13
(2) If no trees exist within the immediate area, the applicant shall create a
landscape setting that integrates the faux tree with added species of a similar
height and type.
(3) All branches at the antenna level shall extend a minimum of 24 inches beyond
the entire vertical length of the antennas for maximum concealment. Antenna
socks shall not count toward this requirement.
(4) Faux trees shall be designed with a minimum of four branches per foot for full
density coverage with limited spacing between the branches unless three
dimensional (3D) models justify lower branch counts.
(5) There shall be no gaps in branch coverage. All branch ports shall be used for
branches. Branches shall blend down the tree with no abrupt transitions.
(6) Poles should be five feet shorter than the overall height of the faux tree to
allow branching at the top of the tree.
(7) Due to the physical form of palm trees and the difficulty of providing
concealment for wireless telecommunications facilities, faux palms shall not
be permitted.
b. Applications proposing faux tree installations shall provide detailed specifications
during plan review, including:
(1) 3D-modeled photo simulations illustrating branches, foliage, pole, and
equipment; and
(2) Sufficient samples, models, or other means to demonstrate the quality,
appearance, and durability of the faux tree.
c. Projects shall not be approved at final inspection if they do not match the
approved exhibits, including photo simulations.
3. Flagpoles and Similar Vertical Elements. This section addresses the design of
wireless telecommunications facilities designed as flagpoles or other stand-alone
pole-like elements that are not used for illumination or above-ground utilities.
a. Flagpoles shall replicate the design, diameter, and proportion of the vertical
element they are intended to imitate and shall maintain a tapered design.
b. Generally, flagpoles should be 30 feet or less in height and not exceed 9 inches in
diameter.
(1) Flagpoles that are higher than 30 feet and/or exceed 9 inches in diameter may
be permitted where the flagpole is located in a suitable setting and
appropriately tapered to maintain the appearance of an authentic flagpole.
b. Antennas and any pole-mounted equipment shall be enclosed within the flagpole.
Flagpoles shall not have an antenna shroud.
14
c. Flagpoles shall comply with the U.S. Flag Code at all times.
d. All cables shall be routed directly from the ground up through the pole.
4. Parking Lot Light Standards. These guidelines are for lights used to illuminate the
immediate area for vehicular and pedestrian safety within a parking lot.
a. Light standards used for wireless telecommunications facilities shall:
(1) Replicate the design, diameter, and proportion of the vertical element they
are intending to imitate; and
(2) Replicate as closely as possible the design of any other lighting standard
within the parking lot, including but not limited to the height of other
parking lot lighting standards and the design, material, and color of nearby
light poles.
b. All cables and conduit to and from the light standard shall be routed from the
caisson through the pole to the antennas.
c. All antennas shall be concealed inside an antenna shroud of a shall be compatible
with the diameter of the pole or concealed within the pole.
d. Light fixtures shall be sized and balanced with the design and height of the overall
light pole.
D. Pole-Mounted Telecommunications Facilities.
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 Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) requirements. The applicant shall provide
documentation satisfactory to the City Manager establishing compliance with this
paragraph.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is
necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
15
E. Accessory Equipment.
1. 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 its visibility to the greatest extent feasible.
2. Accessory equipment for 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.
F. Signage.
1. All wireless facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the equipment
owner/operator, the site name or identification number, and a toll-free number to the
owner/operator's network operations center.
2. Wireless facilities may not bear any other signage or advertisements unless expressly
approved by the City, required by law or recommended under existing and future
FCC or other United States governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions
regulations.
3. RF notification signs shall be placed where appropriate, and not at pedestrian eye
level, unless required by the FCC or other regulatory agencies.
III. Additional Design and Development Standards for Facilities in the Public Right-of-
Way and in Public Utility Easements.
A. Basic Requirements. Facilities located in the public right-of-way and in public utility
easements are subject to the design and development standards set forth in this section in
addition to the design and development standards that apply to all facilities. Only pole-mounted
antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other telecommunications towers are
prohibited.
B. Preferred Configurations
1. Light Poles Wherein all Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Within the Pole
Itself and/or Entirely Under the Ground.
a. Use of light poles for wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted
where there are existing light poles or in areas where a new light pole would be
appropriate (e.g., intersections).
16
b. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole shall not
exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location
where the closest adjacent district is a commercial zoning district and shall not
exceed three feet above the existing height of a street light pole in any other
zoning district. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole
shall be no less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface.
c. Antenna shrouds shall be the same diameter as the pole. The bottom 66 inches of
a pole (the “base”) may be up to 6 inches in diameter wider to accommodate
equipment.
d. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces
in the transition from the base to the upper pole.
e. Poles shall be painted and textured to City standards to match existing streetlights
in the vicinity.
C. Less Preferred Configurations.
1. Existing or Replacement Utility Poles.
a. 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 (CPUC) general orders
(GOs), including, but not limited to,
GO 95.1.
b. All antennas shall be shrouded.
Antenna shrouds should have an outer
diameter of 15" or less and measure
no more than five cubic feet in size.
The shroud should be no more than 4 feet tall, including antenna, radio head,
mounting bracket, and all other hardware necessary for a complete installation.
Figure7: Landscaping conceals wireless
telecommunications equipment mounted on the
exterior of this pole located on Distel Drive.
17
2. Stand-Alone Poles along Rights-of-Way with No Existing Overhead Utility
Lines.
a. Where a stand-alone pole is proposed
within a right-of-way or public utility
easement with no overhead utility lines,
the preferred configuration is for all
equipment to be concealed within the
pole itself, with an antenna/shroud
mounted directly to the top of the pole
and no visible transitions. No
equipment shall be visible outside the
pole. Equipment may, however, be
placed in an underground vault.
b. Antenna shrouds shall be the same
diameter as the pole, which should be
no wider than 14 inches. The bottom 66
inches of a pole (the “base”) may be up
to 18 inches to accommodate
equipment. To prevent accumulation of
trash, facilities shall be designed to
avoid flat surfaces in the transition from
the base to the upper pole.
c. Stand-alone poles match the height and
color of any nearby streetlight or utility pole.
3. Light Poles Wherein Equipment, Cabling, and Antennas are Not Completely
within the Pole Itself and/or Entirely Under the Ground.
a. Use of light poles for wireless telecommunications facilities may be permitted
only in areas where light poles are appropriate.
b. The maximum height of any antenna mounted to a street light pole shall not
exceed seven feet above the existing height of a street light pole in a location
where the closest adjacent district is a commercial zoning district and shall not
exceed three feet above the existing height of a street light pole in any other
zoning district. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on such a pole
shall be no less than 18 feet above any drivable road surface.
c. Antenna shrouds shall be the same diameter as the pole. The bottom 66 inches of
a pole (the “base”) may be up to 6 inches in diameter wider to accommodate
equipment.
d. To prevent accumulation of trash, facilities shall be designed to avoid flat surfaces
in the transition from the base to the upper pole.
Figure 8: Stand-alone small cell poles (as shown in
this example) are not preferred but may be
permitted if enclosure of all equipment within the
pole or in an underground vault is technically
infeasible.
18
e. Poles shall be painted and textured to City standards to match existing streetlights
in the vicinity
D. Requirements for Approval of Less-Preferred Configurations.
1. Application Requirements. Applications that involve less-preferred configurations
may be approved only if the applicant demonstrates that:
a. No preferred configuration would be technically feasible; or
b. The proposed configuration would be aesthetically superior to a preferred
configuration due to existing conditions at the proposed site.
The burden of proof for demonstrating that one of these two conditions exists shall lie
with the applicant.
2. Accompanying Evidence. Applications that involve a less-preferred configuration
shall be accompanied by clear and convincing written evidence demonstrating the
need for approval of the proposed configuration rather than a preferred configuration.
3. Independent Consultant. In reviewing a request for a less-preferred configuration,
the City may hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the
applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred configuration.
E. Pole Requirements.
1. Pole Height and Width Limitations.
a. All poles for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed to be the
minimum functional height and width required to support the proposed antenna
installation and meet FCC requirements. Poles, antennas, and similar structures
shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimension than is
necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
b. Pole-mounted equipment shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
2. Requirements for Replacement Poles. 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.
3. Requirements for New Poles. New poles shall be designed to resemble existing
poles in the right-of-way, including size, height, color, materials, and style, unless (a)
the existing poles are scheduled to be removed and not replaced, or (b) another
design better accomplishes the objectives of this section.
19
F. Pole-Mounted Facilities Requirements.
1. Facilities Mounted to a Telecommunications Tower.
a. 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 City
Manager 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.
b. 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.
2. Monopoles.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimension than
is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.
G. Accessory Equipment.
1. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be screened or camouflaged, and located in a
manner to minimize the equipment’s visibility to the greatest feasible extent.
2. Accessory equipment for 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 that 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.
20
3. Space Occupied. Facilities shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in
the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
4. Cables. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, between
the pole and any accessory equipment shall be placed underground, if feasible.
5. Wires. All new wires needed to service the wireless telecommunications facility shall
be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the
diameter and height of the existing utility pole.
6. Equipment Undergrounding. All equipment (other than the antenna, antenna
supports, ancillary wires, cables and any electric meter) shall be installed
underground wherever feasible.
7. With the exception of the electric meter, which shall be pole-mounted to the extent
feasible, all accessory equipment shall be located underground to the extent feasible.
All wireless equipment installed on poles should be completely contained within an
equipment shroud. Equipment shroud and lines should be painted, treated or finished
to match existing utility pole and line aesthetics. Utility line installations should have
a non-reflective color and finish. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be
adequately screened and camouflaged.
H. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. All facilities shall be built in compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and no facility shall be approved that would
render any portion of the right-of-way noncompliant with the ADA.
I. Other Requirements.
1. Facilities on Decorative Streetlights Prohibited. Small wireless facilities shall not
be located on decorative streetlights.
2. Pole Height Calculation. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be
included when calculating the height of facilities. Pole height shall be is measured
from the top of foundation, which should be flush with the ground, to the top of pole
or top of antenna, whichever is greater.
3. New Pole Material and Finish New pole material and finishes should match the
existing materials of the City standard streetlight poles or match aesthetics and
materials of existing decorative poles.
4. Disturbance of Topography and Vegetation. Disturbance of existing topography
and on-site vegetation shall be minimized unless such disturbance would substantially
reduce the visual impacts of the facility.
5. Separation of Service. Separation of service shall be provided by installing all new
electrical conduit(s) or using empty conduit(s) with the conduit owner’s express
consent in writing.
21
6. Facilities on Streetlight or Traffic Signal Control Poles. For proposed facilities on
streetlight or traffic signal control poles, a hand hole should be provided at the top of
the pole to maintain fiber and electrical service for streetlights and future attachments.
7. Pole Foundation Calculations. Pole foundation calculations shall be prepared and
stamped by a California professionally licensed structural engineer and provided to
the City for review. Pole foundation calculations shall account for all new and
existing pole attachments and the pole.
8. Pole Structural Calculations. Pole structural calculations, including seismic loads,
showing the load impacts of the wireless facility on City streetlight and traffic signal
control poles, shall be prepared and stamped by a California professionally licensed
structural engineer and provided to the City for review.
9. Design Wind Velocity. Design wind velocity shall be 115 miles per hour (mph)
minimum in accordance with TlA-222 rev G, IBC 2012 with ASC 710, and
amendments for local conditions.
10. Trench Backfill. Asphalt concrete sections for trench backfills shall be a thickness
1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER
11.12 AND ADDING CHAPTER 14.82 RELATING TO WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
SETTING NEW LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND REVISING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; California Government
Code § 37100 and other applicable law, the City 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.
B. Los Altos’ public rights-of-way are a uniquely valuable public resource, closely linked
with the City’s rural character and natural beauty. Los Altos has a population of 30,000 and is
suburban community near Silicon Valley. The City has a small town, semi-rural atmosphere –
with wooded, quiet low-density single-family homes. The regulation of wireless communication
facilities both within the public right-of-way and other locations within the City, is necessary to
protect and preserve the aesthetics of the community. The City’s General Plan also provides for
the undergrounding of new telephone and utility lines, “maintaining the low density, low profile
residential character of the community through zoning regulations and design guidelines,” and
“ensuring compatibility between residential and non-residential development through zoning
regulations and design review.” The City’s concerns for preservation of its community including
public safety, visual impact, and aesthetics relate to preserving the residential character of the
community by imposing various design standards that relate to location, camouflaging, height,
size and spacing of wireless telecommunications facilities. Providing separation between
wireless telecommunications facilities and the front of homes along permitted rights-of-way
within residential zones serves to reduce the intrusiveness of any new wireless
telecommunications facilities.
C. The City is mindful of the need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the
community which includes amongst other things, limiting wireless site visibility and impacts to
the City’s aesthetic well-being, while balancing same against the need for sufficient cell
coverage for emergency needs and complying with both federal and state laws. The regulation
as to wireless site visibility is particularly focused on minimizing visibility from residences,
encouraging undergrounding of utilities, and limiting the height of such facilities to be consistent
with the single-family residences that predominate the housing stock of Los Altos. In keeping
with these goals, the City has revised the locational standards to encourage the location of
wireless telecommunications facilities within the rights-of-way of Expressways, Arterials,
Collectors, and Local Collectors designated on the City’s General Plan Circulation Map, while
continuing to permit these facilities along local non-residential streets. And, allowing for the
permitting wireless telecommunications facilities within the rights-of-way of local residential
streets in close proximity to Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Collectors, as an
2
alternative to concentrating facilities along any one street right of way. These sound land use
locational provisions will serve to ensure the preservation of the local residential areas while also
being mindful of avoiding the over saturation of wireless telecommunication facilities on a single
roadway.
D. If not adequately regulated, 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 telecommunication 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/or towers; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety
concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless
telecommunications 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, all of which has the
potential to yield serious negative impacts on the unique quality and character of Los Altos. The
reasonably regulated and orderly development of wireless telecommunication facilities in the
public-right-of-way is desirable, and unregulated or disorderly development represents a threat to
the health, welfare, and safety of the Los Altos community.
E. The City’s beauty is an important reason for businesses to locate in the City and for
residents to live here. Beautiful views enhance property values and increase the City’s tax base.
The City’s economy, as well as the health and well-being of all who visit, work or live in the
City, depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty. The City has been moving towards the
undergrounding of various utilities, including the First Street and Lincoln Park Undergrounding
Utility projects, and needs to ensure that this effort is not hindered by the addition of numerous
wireless telecommunications facilities cabinet, wires, cables, and bulky equipment that visually
impede and clutter the City’s public rights of way. The City’s development and operational
standards serve to encourage the reduction of all appurtenant equipment, screening of same, and
efforts at undergrounding.
F. The City Council takes legislative notice of the various federal court decisions that have
set applicable standards and metrics that the City must meet in the regulation of wireless
telecommunications facilities. The City recognizes that there is a long–standing test in California
that looks to whether and applicant has shown that there is a “significant gap” in service and an
applicant has chosen the “least intrusive means of closing that gap.” MetroPCS, Inc v. City &
County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715,733 (9th Cir. 2005) abrogated on other grounds in T-
Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, 574 U.S. 293 (2015). More recently, the FCC
adopted an Order in a proceeding focused on small wireless facilities and 5G, which found that
local regulations are preempted if those regulations “materially inhibit” the provision of wireless
services. The FCC Order goes on to state that local 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 permissible. In the Matter of
Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33
F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 (2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, City of Portland v United States, 969 F.3d
3
1020, 1032 (9th Cir. 2020). That is, reasonable aesthetic requirements by definition do not
“materially inhibit” service. The City is mindful of these various evolving legal decisions and
FCC Orders in its provision of these revised siting and various development standards.
G. The City acknowledges that there have been significant changes in federal laws that
affect local authority over wireless telecommunication facilities and other related infrastructure
deployments have occurred. These changes in federal law have occurred concurrently with an
ever-increasing demand for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the
public rights of way, in order to offer increased coverage in the way of numerous expanding
technologies such as: cell phones, video streaming, and on line access to work from home during
the COVID -19 pandemic. In connection with the ever increasing demand for expanding
technologies, the City is also mindful of the carriers desire to move forward with 5G and the
recent published decision in Environmental Health Trust v. Federal Communications
Commission, 9 Fed. 4th 893, 905 (D.C. Cir. 2021) , wherein that Court noted that the FCC had
failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that exposure to RF as implicated
by various technological developments that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of
wireless devices and Wi-Fi, and the emergence of 5G technology.
H. The City takes legislative notice of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
adoption on August 2, 2018, of 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 2018 Order"), that, among other things, contained a declaratory ruling prohibiting
express and de facto moratoria for all personal wireless services, telecommunications services
and their related facilities; and that the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and
Order in September of 2018, --- FCC Red. ---, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sep. 27, 2018) (the "September
2018 Order"), which, among many other things, creates new shorter "shot clocks" for small
wireless facilities (as defined in the September 2018 Order), alters existing "shot clock"
regulations to require local public agencies to do more in less time.
I. 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 telecommunications service, as those terms are used in the Federal
Telecommunications Act; rather, the City 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. Indeed, the City has engaged a land use expert to map the available sites that are
permissible for the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities under these siting criteria and
he concludes that this current locations standards would permit small wireless
4
telecommunications along more than 101,185 linear feet of roadway right-of-way within Los
Altos.
J. The overarching intent of this Ordinance is to make wireless telecommunications
reasonably available while preserving the essential rural character of Los Altos. This will be
realized by: minimizing the visual and physical effects of wireless telecommunications facilities
through appropriate design, siting, screening techniques and location standards; encouraging the
installation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at locations where other such facilities
already exist; and encouraging the installation of such facilities where and in a manner such that
potential adverse impacts to Los Altos is minimized.
K. The City adopted an Ordinance regulating wireless telecommunication facilities in
August of 2019. This occurred after the City held a study session and several public hearings, at
which stakeholders discussed wireless and other infrastructure deployment issues, potential local
regulatory responses to the recent changes in federal law in the FCC orders and expressed their
design and location preferences, practical and safety concerns, aesthetic concerns, policy views
and the essential local values that make Los Altos a uniquely small suburban community. The
City’s residents in the summer of 2019 called out the numerous concerns at play with aesthetics,
and these concerns included numerous objections that were focused on visual blight such as:
Small cell nodes previously proposed by carriers, AT&T and Verizon, to the City
of Los Altos were visually intrusive and unsightly;
The City should continue to be judicious about and distaste for visual blight;
The need to eliminate visual blight;
The need to consider potential visual blight, to mitigate noise, heat, and exposure
to EMF, and to protect our enjoyment of our property and its market value;
These cell towers should be placed in commercial areas, in the medians of major
streets, and such. They should not be placed in residential neighborhoods;
Wireless facilities should be installed in some public/commercial place instead of
residential street and so close to people's house. Los Altos neighborhood aesthetic
guidelines and property value is one of the main reasons people are willing to stay
in this great City.
Cell towers or small cells are unsightly, noisy and add to the visual blight from
the existing electric and telephone lines. While urging that small cells should not
be placed in a small residential neighborhood cul de sac street but rather, it would
be better to locate same on a major street or in the back of a commercial property;
Cell towers are ugly and there is no need for extra eye sores;
The mounting of "small" refrigerator-sized boxes on the side of an existing utility
poles is unsightly and adds to visual blight; and
The cell tower is an eye sore that emits an annoying fan type noise that has a
negative impact on the quality of life of the residents who live there or who walk
within the community.
5
These same concerns as to visual blight, aesthetic impairment and noise remain at play today.
The visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities is much
greater in a residential area versus in a non-residential area such as downtown Los Altos, or
Loyola Corners, or along a main arterial or collector streets within Los Altos.
L. On ________, 2022, the City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider an Ordinance to add Chapter 14.82 and to amend Chapter 11.12 at which the Planning
Commission received, reviewed, and considered the staff report, written and oral testimony from
the public and other information in the record, and recommended to the City Council the
adoption of this Ordinance regulating the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities.
M. 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 telecommunications service; rather, the City 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.
N. It is not the purpose or intent of this Ordinance, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to:
(1) prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services; or (2)
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent wireless communications
services; or (3) regulate the placement, construction or modification of Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency ("RF")
emissions where it is demonstrated that the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities does or will
comply with the applicable FCC regulations; or (4) 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;
or (5) prohibit or effectively prohibit collocations or modifications that the City must approve
under state or federal law; or (6) otherwise authorize the City to preempt any applicable federal
or state law.
O. The regulations of wireless installations are necessary to protect and preserve the
aesthetic character of the community and to ensure that all wireless telecommunications facilities
are installed using the least intrusive means possible. The City is also mindful of the fact that
there are a number of different bands that can be utilized by carriers for wireless
telecommunication facilities (including 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 MHz), and
that these additional available band options need to be reviewed and considered in the
determination of the least intrusive alternatives. As well, there are available a number of
alternative means to provide coverage within Los Altos, including but not limited to: the
6
upgrading of existing telecommunications facilities, the placement of macro towers, the co-
location of wireless telecommunications facilities, the provision of micro towers, etc.
SECTION 2. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
A. Chapter 14.82 of the Los Altos Municipal Code is added to provide as follows:
Chapter 14.82 Standards for the Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
14.82.010 Purpose
14.82.020 Definitions
14.82.030 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Preferences
14.82.040 Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations
14.82.050 Alternative to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Preferred
and Less Preferred Locations
14.82.060 Additional Locational Preferences
14.82.070 Eligible Facilities Requested Per Municipal Code 12.12.100 and
Applications Pursuant to Government Code § 65850.6
14.82.010 Purpose
The purpose of the following siting criteria is to provide for the location of wireless
telecommunications facilities within the City of Los Altos in a manner that minimizes the visual
intrusiveness of wireless telecommunications facilities and provides for coverage throughout the
City.
14.82.020 Definitions
The definitions called out in Chapter 11.12 shall apply here unless a specific alternative
definition is provided.
14.82.030 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Locational Preferences
A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Located within Public Rights-of-Way
and Utility Easements
1. Only facilities qualifying for a Section 6409(a) approval and those
meeting the definition of a “small wireless facility” shall be permitted
within public rights-of-way and public utility easements.
2. The preferred location for a wireless telecommunications facility within a
public right-of-way or public utility easement is within the right-of-way of
7
one of the following roadway types as designated on the Los Altos
General Plan Circulation Element as may be amended from time to time.
(a) Expressways;
(b) Arterials;
(c) Collectors fronting non-Residential Zoning Districts identified in
the following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
K. Office-Administrative District, OA (OA);
L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);
O. Commercial Downtown District (CD);
P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS);
Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT);
R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD); and
V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ).
(d) Collectors fronting the Public and Community Facilities District
(PCF) (Municipal Code Section 14.04.010 S).
3. Less preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities within
public rights-of-way and public utility easements include:
(a) Rights-of-way for Local Collectors fronting non-Residential
Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R,
V); and
(b) Public utility easements adjacent to non-Residential Zoning
Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V) as
designated on the City of Los Altos General Plan Circulation Plan
(Figure C-1).
(c) Rights-of-way for Local Streets fronting non-Residential Zoning
Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V);
(d) Rights-of-way for Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local
Collectors fronting Residential Zoning Districts identified in the
following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
1. Single-Family District (R1-10);
2. Single-Family District (R1-H);
8
3. Single-Family District (R1-20);
4. Single-Family District (R1-40);
5. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S);
6. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5);
7. Multiple-Family District (R3-5);
8. Multiple-Family District (R3-3);
9. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8);
10. Multiple-Family District (R3-1);
11. Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District (CD/R3);
12. Planned Community (PC); and
13. W. Planned Unit Development (PUD).
(e) To avoid concentration of wireless telecommunications facilities
within the right-of-way of any one street within the City, small
wireless telecommunications facilities may also be located within
the street rights-of-way for local streets fronting Residential
Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U,
W) where the facility would be:
i. Within 200 feet of the Foothill Expressway right-of-way;
ii. Within 500 feet of the San Antonio Avenue, El Monte
Drive, Magdalena Avenue, or Homestead Road right-of-
way;
iii. Within 300 feet of a Collector or Local Collector right-of-
way.
(f) Rights-of-way for Expressways, Arterials, Collectors, and Local
Collectors and public utilities easements fronting a school in the
Public and Community Facilities District (Municipal Code Section
14.04.010 S)
4. Small wireless telecommunications facilities are not permitted within 1000
feet of another small wireless telecommunications facility.
9
5. Placement Criteria
(a) No portion of any wireless communications facility within a public
right-of-way shall overhang a property line.
(b) Wireless telecommunications facilities and any associated
equipment or improvements shall not physically interfere with or
impede access to any:
1. 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;
2. Access to any public transportation vehicles, shelters, street
furniture or other improvements at any public
transportation stop;
3. Worker access to above-ground or underground
infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private
utility agency;
4. Fire hydrant or water valve;
5. 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
6. Access to any fire escape.
(c) No wireless telecommunications facility within a roadway right-of-
way adjacent to Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code
Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W) shall be placed within the
central fifty percent (50%) of an immediately adjacent parcel’s
street frontage. For corner lots, this standard shall apply to both
roadway frontages.
10
6. Wireless telecommunication facilities within roadway rights-of-way
adjacent to non-Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections
14.04.010 K-L, O-R, V) should be located on poles that are as close as
feasible to shared property lines between two adjacent lots and not directly
in front of a business.
7. Wireless telecommunication facilities should be located on poles that are
as close as feasible to shared property lines between two adjacent lots and
not directly in front of a business.
8. All components of a wireless telecommunications 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.
9. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be located so as to
interfere 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.
10. Facilities mounted to a telecommunications tower, above-ground
accessory equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening
methods shall be setback a minimum of 18 inches from the front of a curb.
11. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located on poles that are
outside of driveway and intersection sight lines.
B. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Located on Properties Outside of
Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements
r-140'------->'<-----200'-----+r-160'
i i
I -~---J
I , 1
t __________ _L __________ T ____ _j 120·
' l
-Wireless Telecommunications Facility Prohibited
Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permitted
~ Right-of-Way
LJ Street
Parcel Lines
L ________________ _
11
1. The preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities include
properties within one of the following Zoning Districts identified in the
following subsections of Municipal Code Section 14.04.010.
K. Office-Administrative District, OA (OA);
L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);
O. Commercial Downtown District (CD);
P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS);
Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT);
R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD); and
V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ).
2. Less preferred locations for wireless telecommunications facilities include
any City-owned property and properties within one of the following
Zoning Districts identified in the following subsections of Municipal Code
Section 14.04.010.
N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN); and
S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF).
T. Public and Community Facilities/Single-Family District (PCF/R1-
10)
3. Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on Properties Outside
of Public Rights-of-Way and Public Utility Easements
(a) No portion of a wireless telecommunications facility may be
permitted to encroach into any applicable setback for main
structures for the zoning district within which it is located unless
the facility is designed per the City’s Design Guidelines.
(b) Wireless telecommunications facilities and any associated
equipment or improvements shall not physically interfere with or
impede access to any:
i. Worker access to above-ground or underground
infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private
utility agency;
ii. Fire hydrant or water valve;
12
iii. Doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops or
other ingress and egress points to any building; or
iv. Fire escape.
(c) No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located so as to
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, nor shall any facility be located so as to interfere with
require access to parking spaces.
14.82.040 Requirements for Approval of Less Preferred Locations
A. Applications that involve less-preferred locations may be approved only if
the applicant demonstrates that:
(1) It does not own any property or facilities within 500 feet from the
proposed site that could provide service in lieu of the proposed
facility;
(2) No preferred location exists within 500 feet from the proposed site;
or
(3) Any preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site
would be technically infeasible.
B. The burden of proof for demonstrating compliance with these above noted
conditions shall be on the applicant and must be satisfied with clear and
convincing evidence.
C. Applications that involve a less-preferred location shall be accompanied
by clear and convincing written evidence demonstrating the need for
approval of the proposed location rather than a more preferred location.
D. In reviewing a request for a less-preferred location, the City may hire an
independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to evaluate the
applicant’s demonstration of need for the proposed less-preferred location.
14.82.050 Alternative to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Preferred and Less
Preferred Locations
A. An application may be approved for a small wireless telecommunications
facility within the right-of-way of a local residential street that is neither a
preferred nor a less preferred location per the requirements of this Chapter
only if:
(1) A combination of macro and small wireless telecommunications
facilities, as well as colocation with existing facilities of other
13
carriers at preferred and less preferred locations within the City
would leave a significant gap in coverage;
(2) The total number of wireless telecommunications facilities within
Residential Zoning Districts (Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010
A-J, M, U, W) is minimized.
B. The burden of proof for demonstrating the need for one or more small
wireless telecommunications facilities within the right-of-way of a local
residential street that are neither a preferred nor a less preferred location
per the requirements of Section 14.82.030A shall lie with the applicant
and shall be included in the application submitted to the City.
C. Applications pursuant to Section 14.82.050 shall be accompanied by clear
and convincing written evidence that demonstrates the applicant’s existing
network configuration serving the City of Los Altos cannot be expanded
and/or reconfigured or modified to provide adequate service through a
combination of new and relocated wireless telecommunications facilities,
as well as colocation with existing facilities of other carriers at preferred
and less preferred locations; and
D. In reviewing a permit request for facilities covered by Section 14.82.050,
the City shall hire an independent consultant at the applicant’s expense to
evaluate the applicant’s current network configuration and demonstration
of need to verify that a combination of facilities within the preferred and
less preferred locations cannot provide service throughout the City.
14.82.060 Additional Locational Preferences
A. Mid-block locations are preferred to more visible corners and intersections
unless:
(1) The wireless telecommunications facility is mounted on a traffic
signal control pole or streetlight;
(2) The wireless telecommunications facility is designed per the City’s
Design Guidelines.
B. The location of a new pole, if permitted, is preferred:
(1) Within the parkway strip if one is present.
(2) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
(3) At an equal distance between trees, when possible, with a
minimum separation of 15 feet from the tree’s trunk or outside of
the tree's drip line, whichever is greater, such that no disturbance
occurs within the critical root zone of any tree.
14
14.82.070 Eligible Facilities Requested per Municipal Code Section 12.12.100 and
Applications Pursuant to Government Code Section 65850.6
Eligible facilities requested per Municipal Code Section 12.12.100 and applications pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65850.6 (see Municipal Code Section 12.12.110), are
permitted within all Zoning Districts and within all public rights-of-way subject to the locational
preferences identified in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, above; and the City’s Design Guidelines.
SECTION 3. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PERMIT
PROVISIONS
A. Title 11.12 of the Municipal Code for the City shall be repeal and/or amended to make
the following changes to the existing text of Chapter 11.12:
1. Section 11.12.040.A is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.040A. Permit Required. 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. Such permit must comply with the locational
standards set forth in Chapter 14.82 of the City’s Municipal Code regulating zoning. In addition,
such permit shall be subject to the conditions of Chapter 11.12, along with the City’s Design
Guidelines calling forth various design and placement standards adopted by the City Council by
resolution, and shall be in addition to any other permit required pursuant to the Los Altos
Municipal Code.
2. Section 11.12.050.A.9 is repealed and replaced as follows:
3. Section 11.12.050.A.9. Intentionally omitted
4. Section 11.12.050.B.1.c. is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12. 050.B.1.c. Analysis of an application that involves a less-preferred location as
set forth in the locational standards of this Chapter, to determine if the applicant owns any
property or facilities within 500 feet of the proposed site that could provide service in lieu of the
proposed facility, and whether there is a preferred location within 500 feet and to determine
whether any such preferred location is technically feasible.
5. Section 11.12.050.E.2 is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.050.E.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 until a
submittal appointment is obtained.
15
6.Section 11.12.060 is repealed and replaced as follows:
11.12.060 - 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
City:
1. Before the permittee submits any application for a building permit or
other permits required by the Los Altos 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.
2.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 ninety (90) days
after installation of the facility.
3. 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 Los Altos Municipal Code.
4. 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 twenty-four (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.
16
c. Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if
different than the permittee.
5. 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.
6. To minimize environmental effects of installation and operations,
wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply with the following
performance standards:
a. Where ground disturbance is required for installation of a wireless
telecommunications facility, applicable best management practices
(BMPs) shall be implemented to minimize loss or topsoil and site
erosion and to reduce diesel particulate (PM10) and PM2.5
emissions.
b. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of historical,
archaeological, or Tribal cultural resources during construction,
ground-disturbing activities shall be halted until a City-approved
qualified consulting archaeologist assesses the significance of the
find according to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. If any find is
determined to be a potential Tribal cultural resource or a unique
archaeological resource, the City, consulting archaeologist, and the
applicable Tribal authority would determine the appropriate
measures to be taken. Any Tribal cultural resources identified
would be subject to Tribal mitigation requirements. Any
archaeological resources recovered would be subject to scientific
analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation
according to current professional standards.
c. Installations of wireless telecommunications facilities shall meet
the most current California Building Code standards required at the
time of construction to reduce the potential for substantial adverse
effects related to ground shaking.
d. In the event of an unanticipated discovery during project
construction, ground-disturbing activities would be halted until a
qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) Standards determines their significance, and,
if significant, supervises their collection for curation. Any fossils
collected during site-specific development project-related
excavations, and determined to be significant by the qualified
17
paleontologist, shall be prepared to the point of identification and
curated into an accredited repository with retrievable storage.
e. Noise generated by equipment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare and shall not exceed the
standards set forth in chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code and
Resolution 2019-35.
f. Where temporary closure of a sidewalk or roadway travel lane
would be necessary for installation of a wireless
telecommunications facility, preparation and implementation of a
Traffic Control Plan approved by the City Engineer shall be
required. Should installation of a wireless telecommunications
facility occur adjacent to a transit stop and require temporary
relocation of the stop, the applicant for such facility shall provide
needed improvements for such a temporary transit stop.
6. 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.
7. 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. Permittee shall conduct on-site testing to ensure the
facility is in compliance with all radio frequency emissions standards
adopted by the FCC. Tests shall occur upon commencement of
operations, and annually thereafter. Copies of the reports from such
testing shall be submitted to the city within thirty (30) days of the
completion of testing. The City may retain a consultant to perform
testing to verify compliance with current regulatory and operational
standards.
8. If the City Manager determines there is good cause to believe that the
facility may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed
FCC standards, the City Manager may require the permittee to submit a
technically sufficient written report certified by a qualified radio
frequency emissions engineer, certifying that the facility is in
compliance with such FCC standards.
9. Annual Certification. Each year on July 1, the permittee shall submit an
affidavit which shall list, by location, all facilities it owns within the city
by location, and shall certify (1) each such installation remains in use;
(2) that such in-use facility remains covered by insurance; and (3) each
18
such installation which is no longer in use. Any facility which is no
longer in use shall be removed by permittee within sixty (60) days of
delivery of the affidavit.
10. 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 Los Altos
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 City
Manager in an amount rationally related to the obligations covered by
the bond and shall be specified in the conditions of approval.
11. 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 proceeding 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.
12. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all
successors in interest to permittee.
13. A condition setting forth the permit expiration date in accordance with
Section 11.12.060 shall be included in the conditions of approval.
7. Section 11.12.080 A. is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.080. Findings.
A. Where a wireless telecommunication facility requires a telecom use permit as
provided for in this Chapter, the City shall not approve any application unless, all of the
following findings are made:
19
1. The proposed facility complies with the locational and siting standards set
forth in Chapter 14.82 and with all applicable building, electrical and fire
safety codes.
2. The proposed facility complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter
14.82 and with the Design Guidelines adopted by the City.
3. The proposed facility complies with all applicable building, electrical and
fire safety codes.
4. The proposed facility has been designed and located to achieve
compatibility with the community to the maximum extent reasonably
feasible.
5. 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 colocation
would not harm community compatibility.
8. Section 11.12.090 Exceptions is repealed in its entirety.
9. Section 11.12.160.B is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.12.160B. After the expiration of the wireless telecommunications permit provided
for in Section A, above, a permittee shall apply for a new permit and comply with all the
requirements of the City Code then at play.
10. Section 11.12.160. C and D are repealed in their entirety.
11. Section 11.12.180.A is repealed and replaced as follows:
A. Permittee’s Removal Obligation. Upon the expiration date of the
permit, or upon earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility
after a period of ninety (90) days, 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.
Should the City be required to remove the facility or restore a site within the public right-of-way,
the owner/operator of the facility shall reimburse the City for its actual costs.
12. Section 11.02.080.C is repealed and replaced as follows:
Section 11.02.080.C A copy of any decision on an application made under this section shall be
provided to the applicant, and to any party who submitted comments to the City Manager
pursuant to notice required by this Chapter. Decisions shall also be posted on the Los Altos
20
website within twenty-four (24) hours of their issuance or as soon as reasonably practicable, in a
manner clearly identifying the application to which the decision relates. And, the decision shall
also be posted on the site of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility.
SECTION 4. DESIGN STANDARDS
The City Council hereby reviews the prior Design Standards called forth in Resolution No. 2019-
35 adopted on August 5, 2019 and repeals same in its entirety and concurrently adopts New
Design Guidelines in a separation resolution to regulate the design standards for wireless
telecommunication facilities.
SECTION 5. CEQA
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Development Standards and Design Guidelines indicates for each environmental issue it
analyzed that environmental impacts would be less than significant or that no impact would
occur. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the
City of Los Altos), that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The Los Altos City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the
remainder of this ordinance, including each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion irrespective of the invalidity of any other article, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion.
SECTION 7. AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Los Altos City Council
by Government Code Section 36934 and will be effective thirty (30) days after second reading.
______________________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
__________________________
Attest: Andrea Chelemengos
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ______ of the City of Los Altos adopted on _____________, 2022 by the
following roll call vote of the City Council:
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk; B Lau
Subject:Fw: Small Cell Tower Site
Date:Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:45:44 PM
Attachments:Verizon Wireless Letter 052421-compressed.pdf
5G-Health-Effects-and-Policy-Issues-April-2023-compressed_1.pdf
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for the
upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record unless a
councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication and its attachments as written communication for
the upcoming council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that community
voices are included in written communications of council meetings as requested, rather than
at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently leave out some minority
voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:44 PM
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Public Works - Engineering Div <engineering@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Small Cell Tower Site
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Council Members:
Based on the city's website and posted information on small cell towers below, it appears the
last public meeting was in 2021 when Darcy Paul was mayor.
Since then, the # of cell #s has increased across Cupertino exponentially including a pending
permit on Bubb Road outside Kennedy Middle School.
Reference: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/permitting-
development-services/small-cell-information
It also appears Verizon has spent quite a bit of $$$ and previously hired the legal firm
MacKenzie & Albritton LLP to represent its interest on May 24, 2021.
I strongly consider the council members to allow numerous small cell towers across Cupertino
especially in residentially zones and directly adjacent to public schools. Please see the
published flyer related to concerns and studies related to the impact of 5G wireless.
The attached flyer is more comprehensive and helps the public make a fully informed decision
as opposed to what your staff members posted on the City's small cell tower section,
positioning such devices as safe (according to other experts). At best this is misleading due to
only sharing partial information (https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-
works/permitting-development-services/small-cell-information) in the FAQs.
I urge you to add this to an upcoming council meeting and explore alternative ways to satisfy
the carrier's requirements without infringing on our residential rights and safety.
Regards,
Brion Lau
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Addendum:
Here is a useful link for information on 5G and cell towers from the Environmental Health
Trust.
https://ehtrust.org/liability-and-risk-from-5g-and-cell-towers/
At the bottom of the article are links to counter-arguments and research stating 5G is safe
and low levels of radiation. The fact is there is no long-term study and the fact that
insurance will not cover this risk should say enough.
Thank you.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:03 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members:
Please see the email below originally addressed to Planning and Public Works
departments.
I should have copied you on the original protest.
Please consider relocating the installation to an alternate site acceptable to the carrier such
as the screenshot provided.
Thank you,
Brion
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Small Cell Tower Site
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: <engineering@cupertino.org>
Screenshot attached with the location of a potential alternate location.
Or, at the very least, please relocate this to another area that would minimize RF exposure
and impact.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:41 AM B Lau <brionelau@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team,
I just met a contractor doing a site analysis on the streetlight outside 21600 Rainbow
Drive. He mentioned they are planning to install a small cell tower on this streetlight
for a public carrier such as Verizon.
I am concerned about this site in particular because my family, neighbors and I will be
subjected to constant RF (radio frequency) waves that could potentially be harmful to
our health especially those of us within 400 meters of this small cell tower.
I realize the City is allowing these towers but previously they were located closer to the
retail corridors with high traffic. This location is directly within a neighborhood with no
local businesses nearby.
Besides the long-term health risks, any argument that we need improved signal is
misleading. Many of us who live in this area use Wi-Fi calling and do not depend on
cell signal or strength alone.
Please relocate this small cell tower elsewhere 400 meters away from this site. My
suggestion is to use the utility structure at the top of Fremont Older Preserve (see
attached). The elevation is higher and this is further away from residential homes
instead of right in the middle of our neighborhood.
I would also like to understand how far along this is in the planning process and if
permits have been issued. If so, please provide a copy of the site analysis and whether
or not the operator has an FCC exemption (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-I/section-1.1307) under section B.
I appreciate your consideration and assistance ensuring our long-term neighborhood
health remains a top priority over commercial concerns for such an installation.
Regards,
Brion Lau
Ph: (408) 219-6415
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
May 24, 2021
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Darcy Paul
Vice Mayor Liang Chao
Councilmembers Hung Wei,
Kitty Moore and Jon Willey
City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Re: Regulation of Small Cell Wireless Facilities in the Right-of-Way
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmembers:
We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the Council’s proposals for
permitting small cells, discussed at your April 20 study session. Since 2017, Verizon
Wireless has worked with the City to submit and process some 120 small cell
applications, pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement executed with the City that
year. Last summer, Department of Public Works staff developed the City’s current
guidelines for small cells on City-owned poles, released August 27, 2020 (the
“Guidelines”). Since then, Verizon Wireless has filed only two dozen applications under
the terms of both the Settlement Agreement and the Guidelines. In October 2020,
Verizon Wireless signed a “Shot Clock” tolling agreement with the City, extending the
time period for Public Works to process the applications per Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) rules.
Some of the approved Verizon Wireless facilities criticized by the Council on
April 20 would be restricted by the Guidelines if their applications were filed today. The
Guidelines should be allowed to remain in effect, and their impact on new applications
should be evaluated before they are revised, as they already address several of the
Council’s concerns. For example, the location preferences already favor non-residential
zones over sites near residences, schools and playgrounds.
Several of the Council’s new proposals would contradict federal or state law, as
we explain. For example, limiting a wireless permit term to three years directly violates
state law. Requiring applicants to prove that a denial would violate federal or state law is
inconsistent with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations.
Cupertino City Council
May 24, 2021
Page 2 of 6
The City should continue processing small cell applications under the current
Guidelines. Verizon Wireless proposes one modification to the Guidelines to address
public participation, by giving the Department of Public Works discretion to hold a
public hearing on an application prior to approval. We look forward to participating in
the Council’s next study session.
Federal Communications Commission Regulations Constrain Local Review
of Small Cell Applications.
The FCC adopted its September 2018 order to provide direction on appropriate
approval criteria for small cells. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report
and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (September 27, 2018) (the “Infrastructure Order”). The
FCC determined that a city’s aesthetic criteria for small cells must be “reasonable,” that
is, “technically feasible” and meant to avoid “out-of-character” deployments, and also
“published in advance.” Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld these FCC
requirements. See City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020),
petition for cert. pending, No. 20-1354 (filed March 22, 2021).
The Court agreed with the FCC that local requirements that “materially inhibit”
deployment of new technology constitute an effective prohibition of service under the
Telecommunications Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II); Infrastructure Order
¶ 37; City of Portland, 969 F.3d at 1036. The Court also upheld the FCC’s “Shot Clock”
rules that require a decision on small cell applications within 60 days (for existing poles)
or 90 days (for new/replacement poles), subject to tolling for incompleteness. 47 C.F.R.
§§ 1.6003(c), (d); City of Portland, 969 F.3d at 1043.
Comments on Council Proposals
Below, we explain that some of the Council’s proposals are already addressed by
the Guidelines. Other proposals contradict state law, federal law or the FCC’s small cell
regulations.
Encouraging new poles in commercial areas, instead of siting facilities in residential
zones. This would not improve on the City’s current location standards. The Guidelines
already prefer Category 1 non-residential zones over Category 2 residential zones. To
site in a Category 2 location, applicants must show that any Category 1 streetlight poles
within 500 feet are infeasible. This would steer a proposed small cell away from
residences to one of the many streetlight poles typically found on nearby commercial
streets, if feasible. The City should allow new poles where necessary, consistent with
Public Utilities Code Section 7901. Verizon Wireless has placed several new streetlight
poles per the City’s request, dedicating them to the City.
Requiring review of alternatives within 1,000 feet. Currently, the Guidelines require
review of any more-preferred locations within 500 feet. To expand the search distance to
1,000 feet would quadruple the search area (from 5.7 acres to 22.9 acres). In the right-of-
Cupertino City Council
May 24, 2021
Page 3 of 6
way, small cells serve targeted areas with a limited coverage footprint. Steering a small
cell too far from a proposed location would leave a target coverage area underserved or
unserved, constituting a prohibition of service in violation of federal law. See 47 U.S.C.
§§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II); see also Infrastructure Order, ¶¶ 37-40.
The 500-foot search distance represents a reasonable compromise between the City’s
desire to regulate the placement of small cell facilities, and the technical limitations of the
radio frequencies licensed by Verizon Wireless from the FCC. Any greater search
distance prevents Verizon Wireless from efficiently deploying its licensed frequencies,
and may constitute a prohibition of service that would contradict federal law.
Accordingly, Berkeley and Davis recently adopted a search distance of 500 feet, Danville
and Concord 250 feet, and Oakland 200 feet.
Requiring applicants to show that a proposed location meets their service needs,
compared to alternatives. Both state and federal law preempt requirements for wireless
carriers to demonstrate the need for their small cells. California Public Utilities Code
Section 7901 grants telephone corporations a statewide right to place their equipment
along any right-of-way, including new poles, so wireless applicants need not provide
information regarding need. Further, as discussed above, the FCC determined that small
cells are needed to densify networks, and to enhance and introduce new services. These
are Verizon Wireless’s objectives in placing small cells in Cupertino.
Consistent with the FCC’s direction to develop “reasonable” aesthetic criteria, the
appropriate standard for comparing alternatives is technical feasibility. The Guidelines
already list feasibility as a factor for reviewing more-preferred locations within 500 feet.
Verizon Wireless has discounted alternative poles for feasibility factors such as excessive
tree cover that blocks signal, or difficulty connecting to a sufficient power source
compared to proposed pole.
Adding Categories 4 and 5, whereby sites within 40 feet of homes would require
Planning Commission approval, and within 20 feet, Council approval. Proximity to
residences is already addressed in the Guidelines, which list locations within 20 feet of
any occupied structures in least-preferred siting Category 3. Currently, an applicant
proposing a site within 20 feet of residence must show that within 500 feet, there are no
feasible alternatives that are not within 20 feet of an occupied structure.
Because the Guidelines impose this reasonable location constraint, hearings before the
Commission and/or Council are unnecessary, and would be burdensome on staff time and
resources. The Planning Commission is tasked with issuing land use permits, not
encroachment permits. The City Engineer has the expertise to evaluate technical
feasibility of alternatives. A Commission or Council denial would likely contradict the
location preferences of the Guidelines, if more-preferred location options within 500 feet
are infeasible. Such a denial would “materially inhibit” service improvements,
constituting a prohibition of service. Any decision of the Planning Commission or
Council that contradicts the Guidelines would violate the federal requirement that
standards be technically feasible and published in advance.
Cupertino City Council
May 24, 2021
Page 4 of 6
Increasing the setback from occupied structures from 20 to 40 feet would restrict most
rights-of-way. The attached analysis by Richard Kos, AICP, evaluates the impact of an
increased setback on the rights-of-way where small cells can be placed on streetlights,
based on City GIS data. Combined, the current setbacks of 20 feet from occupied
structures and 100 feet from schools and playgrounds limit 17.29% of the rights-of-way
suitable for small cells. Increasing the occupied structure setback to 40 feet would limit
75.81% of the rights-of-way – over four times as much, and clearly constituting a
prohibition of service under federal law. We also note that, if used as a measure to
require Planning Commission review, the 40-foot setback would require nearly all small
cell applications to be subject to a lengthy hearing process.
Finally, as noted, the City has been unable to process current Verizon Wireless
applications within the required FCC “Shot Clock” periods. As a result, Verizon
Wireless and the City have had to enter into multiple agreements to avoid City liability
for failing to meet these federal processing timelines. To add Planning Commission and
City Council hearings to this process, whether by right or through appeals, would
seriously compound the City’s current inability to timely process small cell applications.
The City should avoid new regulations that would make processing applications within
the FCC’s “Shot Clock” timelines impossible.
Requiring applicants to show that denial would violate federal or state law. This is
similar to wireless permit findings in Los Altos, which Verizon Wireless has sued
because of its unlawful ordinance and an unfounded denial of a small cell (AT&T also
has sued Los Altos). There is no reason to require applicants to explain why a denial
would violate federal or state law, as that has no bearing on the “reasonable” aesthetic
and location criteria required by the FCC.
This proposal implies that the City would deny a proposed small cell if the decision-
maker did not believe that an applicant provided a sufficient legal explanation. However,
such judicial determinations must be left to the courts. Evaluating the risks of denial on a
case-by-case basis would suggest that the City adopted legally-suspect regulations.
Instead, a city should confirm that its small cell policies are reasonable and lawful at the
outset.
Limiting permit term to three years for sites closer to residences. This would violate
California Government Code Section 65964(b), which bars cities from unreasonably
limiting wireless permit terms, and presumes that a period less than 10 years is
unreasonable.
Two-year master plan if applicant submits 10 or more applications per year. A
master plan implies an evaluation of the need for a facility, but as explained above, state
and federal law preempt requirements for wireless applicants to prove the need for their
small cells in the right-of-way. Adherence to a previously-submitted master plan could
not be a decision factor for future applications; each small cell must be evaluated on its
own merits. Wireless networks are dynamic, and a carrier’s network plans may change
Cupertino City Council
May 24, 2021
Page 5 of 6
based on new frequencies available from the FCC, evolving technologies, shifts in
customer demand, and new federal regulations. A master plan prepared today may be
inapplicable next year.
Appeal to the City Manager. This would expand the City Manager’s duties with
respect to administrative appeals, requiring an ordinance amendment. A formal appeal
process is unnecessary because the Guidelines already provide for public participation.
Currently, applicants must mail public notice to property owners with 500 feet, respond
to public comments received within 21 days, and prepare a public comment report for the
City Engineer. As noted, Verizon Wireless has cooperated with requests from Public
Works to relocate seven of its approved small cells in response to public comment,
confirming that the Guidelines’ current notice and comment procedures work.
Instead of public appeals to the City Manager, the Council should consider adding a
provision to the Guidelines granting the Department of Public Works the discretion to
hold a public hearing on an application, if warranted by public comment. The hearing
could be conducted by the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer, or their designee,
with hearing comments included in the record prior to a decision on an application.
Verizon Wireless appreciates the Council’s recognition that appeals should not be
allowed if based on concern over radio frequency emissions, because that is preempted
by the Telecommunications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Because many public
objections are based on radio frequency emissions, appeals generally would be barred by
this Council proposal, demonstrating why a new appeal process is unnecessary.
Stronger aesthetic requirements. As explained above, the FCC requires that a city’s
aesthetic standards for small cells be technically feasible. Wireless carriers are limited to
antenna and radio models available from manufacturers that work with the frequencies
that the carrier has licensed from the FCC.
Verizon Wireless has designed its small cells to minimize the profile of this required
equipment. The current screened design is a compromise that allows for a uniform
profile that works for Verizon Wireless, AT&T and other wireless carriers. The designs
approved for Verizon Wireless small cells in Cupertino are shown in Exhibit B,
“Approved Designs,” of the 2017 Settlement Agreement.
Fiber backhaul networks. Fiber lines should not be addressed in a city’s wireless
regulations. Verizon Wireless will not install the fiber backhaul lines that connect its
small cells in Cupertino, but will be a customer of fiber companies that provide
connections for various users along a fiber route. Fiber companies are regulated
differently. For example, they generally are registered with the California Public Utilities
Commission as wireline telephone companies, whereas Verizon Wireless is a cellular
carrier. Further, fiber backhaul networks are beyond the scope of a “small wireless
facility” as defined by the FCC. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l). Verizon Wireless’s
encroachment permits encompass each small cell up to its point-of-connection with the
Cupertino City Council
May 24, 2021
Page 6 of 6
fiber backhaul network, but not beyond. Fiber providers would secure their own permits
under applicable regulations.
The Guidelines are consistent with small cell regulations adopted by numerous
other cities. Of note, the reasonable location preferences and the 500-foot search distance
provide clear siting criteria for both applicants and City staff, while avoiding an unlawful
prohibition of service. We encourage the City to continue processing small cell
applications according to the current Guidelines.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
Attachment
cc: Heather Minner, Esq.
Marlene Dehlinger, Esq.
Chad Mosley
Kirsten Squarcia
1
Methodology for calculating impact of setback requirements on the
siting of future Verizon small cell wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Cupertino
Prepared by Richard Kos, AICP | March 2021
Step 1. Assemble spatial datasets from the city’s open data portal (https://www.cupertino.org/online-
services/open-government-data/open-datahub) into a geodatabase; project all datasets to a common
projected coordinate system (U.S. State Plane Zone III, NAD 1983, linear units feet):
• Light poles (not “traffic poles”)
• Building footprints
• City boundary
• Edge of pavement
• Parcels
• Zoning
• Facilities
• Park structures
Step 2. Create a map layer depicting all portions of public right-of-way within 10 feet of parcel lines. This
is a conservative estimate of the portion of right-of-ways within which small sites might be constructed
and which lie outside of vehicular travel areas. Begin by dissolving all parcels with centroids in the
Cupertino city limits into a single shape. Then use the Buffer function to delineate the 10-foot distances
from the resulting edges. A portion of the resulting map layer is shown below (10-foot distances in red)
The objective of this analysis is to show the impact of city-imposed setback distances on the feasibility of
constructing new Verizon small cell sites in “Least Preferred Sites”. Small cells are permitted on city-
owned light poles per the city’s Guidelines for Encroachment Permit Submittals. Relevant portions of
Attachment C from the Guidelines are shown below (highlighting added).
2
For reference, note the setback requirements listed below in “Category 3” (items a. through e.) The
following sections of this report analyze four of the five setback distances, excluding the 500’ setback
between facilities, provided under 3.b
Category 3.a. 15 feet from a public roadway intersection.
There is no systematic or programmatic way in GIS to map this distance for every intersection in
Cupertino since each intersection has unique geometry and there is no way to programmatically select
each curb radius. Instead, a rough approximation of the right-of-way area impacted by provision 3.a. can
be made. First, this 15-foot distance is understood to mean 15 feet as measured from a point of tangency
at the “tip” of the curb radius. First, the number of intersections, citywide, is estimated.
Using the Intersect tool, with Cupertino roads as the input and points as output, 3,960 intersections were
found after filtering out all points outside of the city limits and manually removing intersections along
freeways. Manually remove another 500 points to estimate for multiple intersection points appearing
along divided arterial streets (e.g. Stevens Creek Boulevard). The result is 3,460 intersections.
We can conservatively estimate that all Cupertino streets meet at 4-way intersections and – at each of
these intersections – there are eight separate right-of-way “sides of the street” (sidewalk legs, for lack of a
better term) per intersection.
Multiplying 3,460 intersection points by 8 … then multiplying the result by 15 linear feet (per provision
3.a) = 415,200 linear feet of right-of-way, citywide, affected by provision 3.a. Since this analysis considers
a right-of-way width of 10 feet as the area in which small cell sites could be added to city light poles, the
area of rights-of-way affected by category 3.a. is (415,200 x 10) = 4,152,000 square feet. Divide this by
43,560 to arrive at 95.31 acres.
There are 324.30 acres in the 10-foot right of way, citywide, so dividing 95.31 acres into this value,
represents 29.39% of total 10-foot right of way width is impacted by category 3.a.
3
Category 3.b. 500 feet from any other small cell facility in the right-of-way owned by the same wireless
carrier.
This layer is not shown on the maps. However, there may be instances where the separation of facilities is
not within the applicant’s control.
Category 3.c. 20 feet from an occupied structure.
Per Modus, “occupied structure” is defined as:
“Occupied structures” as the City applies it includes any building that has
people – residences, offices, commercial buildings.. it’s a pretty broad term to
implement a mandatory 20’ setback across the board. 1
One way to determine how different buildings are typically occupied is to consider
Cupertino’s zoning districts, listed at the right. From this list of districts, and
considering the definition above, it appears that all buildings in all zoning districts
could, technically, quality as “occupied structures”. Therefore, all buildings in
Cupertino appear to be subject to the small-cell building setback requirements. In Steps 3, 4, and 5 of this
report, the impact of current building setbacks (20 feet) on small cell siting will be explored, along with
an analysis of increasing these setbacks to 30 feet and 40 feet.
Category 3.d. 100 feet from a public school building.
The shapefile “Facilities” was downloaded from the city’s open data portal. This map layer includes
locations of schools, including De Anza College. The layer was filtered to show only public school
properties – there are 30 in the city. Since the map layer includes the entire school property for school
sites, in order to isolate the school buildings “select by location” was used to select all of the building
footprints that intersect those 30 properties – the result is 503 buildings, including primary structures
and any other building on the school properties. The resulting 503 public school property buildings were
then buffered by 100 feet.
Category 3.e. 100 feet from a publicly accessible playground.
The shapefile “Park Structures” was downloaded from the city’s open data portal. This map layer includes
locations of playgrounds. When filtered for this park structure types, there are 38 playgrounds in the city.
A 100-foot buffer was delineated from these 38 sites.
Step 3. Analyze the impact of 20-foot building setbacks (category 3.c.) in combination with Category 3.d,
and 3.e. Buffers
Generate 20-foot buffers around all occupied building footprints in the city and combine with the other
two setback categories – school buildings and playgrounds. The map on page 4 shows rights-of-way
colored red that are impacted by these three combined setback areas and green where there is no
impact of setbacks.
Step 4. Repeat the process from Step 3 above, this time using a 30-foot setback from all occupied
structures. The results of this analysis are shown on page 5.
Step 5. Repeat the process from Step 3 above, this time using a 40-foot setback from all occupied
structures. The results of this analysis are shown on page 6.
1 Email from JoAnna Wang, Modus Director of Government & Community Affairs, to Richard Kos, January 12, 2021.
4
5
6
7
CONCLUSIONS
With the existing 20-foot occupied building requirement (category 3.a.):
• 56.07 acres: citywide, impacted by Category 3.c, 3.d, 3.e setback requirements
Divided by
• 324.30 acres: citywide, all 10-foot right-of-way as measured from nearest property line
Equals
• 17.29%: the portions of 10-foot right-of-way impacted by Category 3.c, 3.d, 3.e setback
requirements.
With the existing 20-foot occupied building requirement increased to 30 feet:
• 185.03 acres: citywide, impacted by Category 3.c, 3.d, 3.e setback requirements
Divided by
• 324.30 acres: citywide, all 10-foot right-of-way as measured from nearest property line
Equals
• 57.06%: the portions of 10-foot right-of-way impacted by Category 3.c (modified to 30 feet), 3.d,
and 3.e setback requirements.
If the existing 20-foot occupied building requirement were to be doubled to 40 feet:
• 245.86 acres: citywide, impacted by Category 3.c, 3.d, 3.e setback requirements
Divided by
• 324.30 acres: citywide, all 10-foot right-of-way as measured from nearest property line
Equals
• 75.81%: the portions of 10-foot right-of-way impacted by Category 3.c (modified to 40 feet), 3.d,
and 3.e setback requirements.
N
E
W
Y
O
RK CITY
Thinner skulls allow RF radiation to move easier into the
brain.
Higher water content in brain tissue which is more
conductive to electricity.
Smaller heads result in a shorter distance for the RF to
travel from the skull to critical brain regions important for
learning and memory.
Their brains are still developing.
Children have more active stem cells- a type of cell
scientifically found to be uniquely impacted by RF.
Children will have a longer lifetime of higher exposures,
starting from before they are born.
Cell towers and cell phones emit wireless
radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
Children are more vulnerable to RF radiation, just as they are to
other environmental exposures. They have proportionately
more exposures to RF compared to adults. More importantly,
even very low exposures to children can have serious impacts
later in life because their nervous and immune systems are still
in development.
Children absorb higher levels of RF radiation deeper
into their brains and bodies because they have:
Children are more sensitive to RF impacts because:
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
CHILDREN’S VULNERABILITY
TO WIRELESS RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) RADIATION
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
Headaches
Memory problems
Dizziness
Depression
Sleep problems
The American Academy of
Pediatrics states:
“In recent years, concern has
increased about exposure to radio
frequency (RF) electromagnetic
radiation emitted from cell phones and
phone station antennas. An Egyptian
study confirmed concerns that living
nearby mobile phone base stations
increased the risk for developing:
Short-term exposure to these fields in
experimental studies have not always
shown negative effects, but this does
not rule out cumulative damage from
these fields, so larger studies over
longer periods are needed to help
understand who is at risk. In large
studies, an association has been
observed between symptoms and
exposure to these fields in the
everyday environment.”
–American Academy of Pediatrics
HealthyChildren.org
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
CELL TOWER RF RADIATION AND CANCER
In 2011, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
(RF-EMF) were classified as a Group 2B
possible carcinogen by the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for
Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC).
The WHO/IARC scientists clarified that this
determination was for RF-EMF from any
source be it cell phones, wireless devices, cell
towers or any other type of wireless
equipment.
Since 2011, the published peer-reviewed
scientific evidence associating RF-EMF (also
known as RF-EMR and RFR) to cancer and
other adverse effects has significantly
increased.
A large-scale animal study published in Environmental Research
found rats exposed to RF levels comparable to cell tower
emissions had elevated cancers, the very same cancers also
found in the US National Toxicology Program animal study of
cell phone level RF that found “clear evidence” of cancer in
carefully controlled conditions (Falcioni 2018).
In 2019, the WHO/IARC advisory committee recommended
that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated as a “high”
priority in light of the new research. The date of the re-
evaluation has not been set.
Currently, several scientists conclude that the weight of
currently available, peer-reviewed evidence supports the
conclusion that radiofrequency radiation is a proven human
carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg 2017, Peleg et al. 2022, Miller
et al. 2018).
The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer
Classified Radiofrequency Radiation as a "Possible" Carcinogen in 2011
RESEARCHERS RECOMMEND CELL TOWERS BE DISTANCED
AWAY FROM HOMES AND SCHOOLS
The review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health
effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human
exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors
recommend restricting antennas near homes, and restricting antennas within 500 meters of schools
and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020).
An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found approximately 80% showed
biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less
than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft” (Levitt 2010).
A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people
living less than 500 meters from base station antennas had increased adverse neuro-behavioral
symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2010).
A paper by human rights experts published in Environment Science and Policy documented the
accumulating science indicating safety is not assured, and considered the issue within a human rights
framework to protect vulnerable populations from environmental pollution. “We conclude that,
because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State
obligations under international human rights law” (Roda and Perry 2014, PDF).
PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
P A G E 7 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
The study “Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone
base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure
apartment“ published in Oncology Letters by Koppel et al. (2019)
measured 2 apartments and found that the apartment with high RF levels
had outdoor areas as close as 6 meters (about 19.6 feet) from transmitting
base station cell antennas. In contrast, the apartment with low RF
exposure had cell antennas at 40 meters (about 131 feet) away from the
balcony.
Furthermore, the researchers also found that both high- and low-RF
apartments had good mobile phone reception, and they
concluded,“therefore, installation of base stations to risky places cannot be
justified using the good reception requirement argument.”
A measurement study by Baltrėnas et al. (2012) published in Journal of
Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management investigated RF
power density levels from cell phone antennas located 35 meters away
from a 10-story apartment building. The transmitting antennas were
approximately at the same height as the 6th floor of the building. The
researchers found the highest RF levels at floors 5, 6 and 7. The RF at the
6th floor balcony was three times higher than the 3rd floor balcony. The
RF power density at the 6th floor was about 15 times the RF measured at
the first floor.
A case report by Hardell et al. (2017) of RF levels in an apartment in
close proximity to rooftop cellular network antennas used an exposimeter
to measure levels of different types of RF in the apartment and balconies
including TV, FM, TETRA emergency services, 2G GSM, 3G UMTS, 4G LTE,
DECT cordless, Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz and WiMAX. The closest
transmitting antennas were 6 meters away from the balcony. The
researchers found 97.9% of the mean RF radiation was caused by
downlink from the 2G, 3G and 4G base stations. (Downlink means
frequencies emitted “down” from the base station cellular antennas.) The
researchers found that if the base station RF emissions were excluded, the
RF radiation in the children's bedrooms was reduced approximately 99%.
The researchers conclude, “due to the current high RF radiation, the
apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who
may be more sensitive than adults.”
APARTMENTS & CONDO BUILDINGS
INCREASED RF RADIATION FROM CELL ANTENNAS
A study entitled “Very high
radiofrequency radiation at
Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden
from mobile phone base station
antennas positioned close to
pedestrians' heads” published in
Environmental Research by Koppel et al.
(2022) created an RF heat map of RF
measurements, finding that the highest
RF measurements were in areas of
close proximity to the base station
antennas. The researchers concluded
with recommendations to reduce close
proximity placements such as
positioning antennas “as far as possible
from the general public” like in high-
elevation locations or more remote
areas.
INCREASED EXPOSURE FROM 5G/4G "SMALL"
CELL ANTENNAS LOCATED CLOSE TO PEOPLE
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
Close Range ExposureClose Range Exposure
A study entitled “Measurements of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of
Columbia, South Carolina, USA'' published in the World
Academy of Sciences Journal found the highest RF levels in areas
where the cell phone base station antennas were placed on top
of utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights or other posts near to
the street. The scientists compared their 2022 findings to an
earlier 2019 published review on the mean outdoor exposure
level of European cities and they found the South Carolina
measurements to be higher.
The researchers concluded that the highest exposure areas
were due to two reasons: cell phone base antennas on top of
high-rise buildings provide “good cell coverage reaching far away,
but creating elevated exposure to the radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields at the immediate vicinity; and cell phone
base station antennas installed on top of utility poles have
placed the radiation source closer to humans walking on street
level.”
RESEARCH ON ANTENNAS CLOSE
TO HOMES, SCHOOL AND WORK
Surveys of people living near cell tower
antennas in France, Spain, Iraq, India,
Germany, Egypt, Poland have found
significantly higher reports of health issues
including sleep issues, fatigue and headaches
(See Santini et al. 2003, López 2021, Alazawi
2011, Pachuau and Pachuaua 2016, Eger et
al. 2004, Abdel-Rassoul et al. 2007,
Bortkiewicz et al., 2004).
A study published in American Journal of Men’s
Health linked higher cell tower RFR exposures to
delayed fine and gross motor skills and to
deficits in spatial working memory and attention
in school adolescents (Meo 2018).
A study published in Environmental Research
and Public Health found higher exposures linked
to higher risk of type 2 diabetes (Meo 2015).
A study following people for 6 years linked
increased cell phone and cell phone tower
antenna exposure to altered levels of hormones
including cortisol, thyroid, prolactin and
testosterone (Eskander et al. 2021).
HEALTH SYMPTOMS REPORTED BY PEOPLE
LIVING CLOSE TO CELL ANTENNAS
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
Image: Figure 1: Top floor apartment adjacent to base stations. Nilsson M, Hardell L. (2023) Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office. Ann Clin Case Rep
A study that followed people in a German
town after a cell tower was erected found
stress hormones adrenaline and
noradrenaline significantly increased over the
first 6 months after the antenna activation and
decreased dopamine and PEA levels after 18
months (Buchner 2011).
Two published case report document illness
that developed after 5G antennas were
installed. In Hardell and Nilsson 2023, a
couple developed microwave syndrome
symptoms (e.g., neurological symptoms,
tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress,
skin disorders, and blood pressure variability)
after a 5G base station was installed on the
roof above their apartment.
Similarly, in “Development of the
Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly
after Installation of 5G on the Roof above
their Office” two men developed symptoms
after 5G antennas were activated on the roof
of their workplace. The symptoms disappeared
in both men within a couple of weeks (case 1)
or immediately (case 2) after leaving the office.
Scientists state that 5G's higher frequencies cannot be
assumed safe.
5G systems are using low band frequencies well associated
with harmful effects (ICBE-EMF 2022, European Parliament
2021, Panagopoulos et al. 2021). However 5G networks are
also using higher frequencies such as 3.5 GHz and into the
mmWave range with 24 GHz and higher.
Contrary to claims that the 5G’s higher frequencies simply
“bounce” off the skin, researchers have documented that the
coiled portion of the skin’s sweat duct can be regarded as a
helical antenna in the sub-THz band and the skin, our largest
organ, can intensely absorb the higher 5G frequencies
(Feldman and Ben Ishai 2017).
Reviews of 5G health effects caution that the expected real-
world impact would be far more serious due to the complex
waveforms and other combinations with other toxic stimuli in
the environment (Kostoff et al 2020, Russell, 2018,
Belyaev 2019, McCredden et al 2023).
Researchers will often experiment with zebrafish, rodents and
fruit flies to gain data on potential health effects to humans.
An Oregon State University study on zebrafish exposed to 3.5
GHz (Dasgupta et al. 2022) found “significant abnormal
responses in RFR-exposed fish” which “suggest potential long-
term behavioral effects. Yang et al 2022 found 3.5 GHZ
induced oxidative stress in guinea pigs.
A study on 3.5 GHz exposure to both diabetic and healthy rats
(Bektas et al 2022) found an increase in degenerated
neurons in the hippocampus of the brains, changes in
oxidative stress parameters and changes in the energy
metabolism and appetite of both healthy and diabetic rats.
The researchers conclude that, “5G may not be innocent in
terms of its biological effects, especially in the presence of
diabetes.”
PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON 5G
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
New York City Jumbo 5G poles with 5 tiers to house transmitting antennas from numerous carriers.
New York City "small cell" antennas in front of living room window.
Studies on fruit flies exposed to 3.5 GHz have found
the exposure led to increases in oxidative stress,
changes in the microbial community (Wang et al
2022) and alterations of the expression of several
types of genes (Wang et al 2021).
A review by Russell 2018 found evidence for
millimeter wave effects to the skin, eyes, immune
system, gene expression, and bacterial antibiotic
resistance.
Recent experimental research on high-band 5G
impacts to animal fertility found that 27 GHz
damages sperm quality in mussels (Pecoraro et al
2023).
Yet the US government is not funding any research
on biological effects of frequencies at 3.5 GHz or
above 6 GHz to humans.
PUBLISHED RESEARCH ON 5G
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
5G's higher frequencies will be combined with the
lower frequencies from current networks already
present in the environment.
Studies on rats have found exposure to both 1.5 and
4.3 GHz microwaves induced: cognitive impairment
and hippocampal tissue damage (Zhu et al 2921);
impairments in spatial learning and memory, with the
combined simultaneous exposures resulting in the
most most severe effects (Wang et al 2022); and
immune suppressive responses (Zhao 2022).
Long-term exposure to 2.856 and 9.375 GHz
microwaves impaired learning and memory abilities
as well as EEG disturbance, structural damage to the
hippocampus, and differential expression of
hippocampal tissue and serum exosomes
Wang et al. 2023).
Resolutions to halt 5G in numerous European cities
including Trafford, UK, Lille, France, Ormidia, Cyprus,
Councils in Ireland and more.
600 municipalities have passed resolution to halt 5G.
Los Angeles CA Public Schools: RFR Limit 10,000x less
than FCC.
Resolutions to halt 5G passed in Hawaii County HI,
Farragut TN, Keene NH & Easton CT.
Numerous cities restrict cell antennas near homes
including: Los Altos, Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu and San
Diego County CA, Bedford NH and more.
New Hampshire 5G Commission's 15 Recommendations
include increasing transparency, reduce public exposure,
research health effects and protect wildlife and trees.
Oregon investigating health effects of wireless.
Palo Alto, Los Angeles LA Schools Greenbelt MD, Bar
Harbor ME; No school cell towers
Cell antennas prohibited in “sensitive areas" -
kindergartens, hospitals and nursing homes.
No cell towers on homes, schools, colleges, playing fields,
populated areas and heritage areas.
60 mayors/officials petition to halt 5G.
Federal health agency investigating 5G
5G antenna RFR is measured.
Parliament refused to weaken radio frequency radiation
(RFR) limits after 5G Report.
Health Council recommends against 26 GHz for 5G due
to lack of safety data.
No cell towers near schools.
Cell tower setback 100m from schools/ homes.
EUROPE
ITALY
UNITED STATES
CHILE
BANGLADESH
FRANCE
SWITZERLAND
NETHERLANDS
RUSSIA
ISRAEL
City of Toronto
Mezdra and Balchik have banned 5G.
The installation of cell towers at the premises of schools,
kindergartens, hospitals or eldercare facilities is prohibited.
Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Child Health 5G
Position Paper calls for 5G free zones.
New South Wales Dept. of Education policy objects to towers
on/near schools.
Cell antennas prohibited on kindergartens and hospitals.
RFR limit tightened to 1/10 of CNIRP limits after Inter-Ministerial
Report on impacts to wildlife.
Mumbai, Zilla Parishad & Karnataka: Cell towers
prohibited/removed near schools, colleges, orphanages and old
age homes.
Brihanmumbai Municipal: Cell towers banned at parks and
playgrounds.
State of Rajasthan: Supreme Court of India upheld removal of
“hazardous to life" cell towers from vicinity of schools,
hospitals/playgrounds.
CANADA
"Prudent Avoidance Policy" for Cell Towers.
BULGARIA
GREECE
CYP RUS
AUSTRALIA
LITHUANIA
INDIA
Links to ordinances at ehtrust.org
WORLDWIDE POLICY
5G & CELL TOWERS
P A G E 1 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. For more setbacks go to ehtrust.org
500 foot setbacks for small cells for multi-family residences in
commercial districts
500 ft separation from schools
1500 ft separation between nodes
“SCWs shall not be located within 1,000 feet of schools, child
care centers, hospitals, or churches.”
Easton CN City Council passed a 5G cease and desist resolution
Warren, Connecticut Policy defines "adequate coverage" and
"adequate capacity." and 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.“ 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.
Coconut Creek FL Commission adopted a Resolution on 5G and
radiofrequency radiation.
Hallandale Beach FL Resolution urges the federal government to
initiate independent health studies on 5G.
Lavallette FL Resolution 2021-58: Applicant shall obtain
certification from the Federal Aviation Administration and the
United States Dept. 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 train City employees. Verizon cannot install
more than a total of 20 "small cell" nodes throughout the
Borough to support 5G.
Hawai'i County Council passed a Resolution to halt 5G
Oak Brook IL Resolution calls for local control re small cels.
CALIFORNIA
Numerous CA cities restrict cell antennas near homes with setbacks
and strict ordinances including: Los Altos, Petaluma, Mill Valley,
Malibu, Santa Barbara, Nevada City, Suisin, Calabasas, San Clemente,
Westlake, Sonoma, Sebastopol, San Rafael, Ross Valley, Encinitas,
Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnut City and San Diego County.
As an example of CA ordinances, the Los Altos City ordinance:
San Diego County, California
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
HAWAI'I
IILLINOIS
Little Silver, NJ Carriers should provide notice to property
owners within 500 feet of proposed facility.
Scarsdale NY: 500 foot setbacks to homes preferred.
Copake NY: Pre/post testing by RF engineer. No repeater
closer than 200 ft to dwelling. No tower closer than 1500
ft to residence/church.
Community Boards issuing Moratoriums on 5G poles
Proposed State Bill - 1640 ft setbacks.
Keene NH Resolution to halt 5G
Bedford NH 750 ft. setback
Mason OH Zoning Ordinance No small cells in residential
areas or within 100 feet of residential prop; 2000 feet
apart (unless colocated); equipment should be
underground or wholly contained.
Sallisaw OK 1,500 feet setback
Farragut City Resolution to halt 5G
Greendale WI passed Resolution R2018-20 referring to
the FCC’s actions stripping local authority as “an
unprecedented attack on local control.”
INDIANA
Carmel City IN Council resolution asks state lawmakers, FCC
and Congress to limit 5G until health effects fully understood.
MASSACHUSETTS
Randolph MA 500 ft setback. Yearly RFR measurements.
Lunenburg and Great Barrington MA 500 ft setback
Stockbridge MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet
from a school, park or athletic field and 600 ft from
residence.
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NEW HAMPSHIRE
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
TENNESSEE
WISCONSIN
Links to ordinances at ehtrust.org
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5G & CELL TOWERS
P A G E 1 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. For more setbacks go to ehtrust.org
Legal filings by cities and municipalities to the FCC
highlight how small cell deployment could impact
aesthetics and property values.
"many deployments of small cells could
affect property values, with significant
potential effect…”
— Reply Comments of Smart Communities Siting
Coalition (local governments and associations
representing 1,854 communities)
4/7/2017,Docket No. 16-421, April 7, 2017
"Considering that the Smart Communities’
prior filings show that the addition of
facilities of this size diminish property
values, it is strange for the Commission to
assume that approval can be granted in the
regulatory blink of an eye…."
"...allowing poles to go up in areas where
poles have been taken down has significant
impacts on aesthetics (not to mention
property values).”
— Ex Parte Submission of Smart Communities
Letter to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission,
September 19, 2018
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
5G, Small Cells & Cell Towers Can Drop
Property Values
Would you buy a home with cell antennas outside the
bedroom window?
"An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and
renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science,
Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less
interested and would pay less for a property located
near a cell tower or antenna."
"of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 % said that
under no circumstances would they ever purchase or
rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or
antennas, and almost 90% said they were concerned
about the increasing number of cell towers and
antennas in their residential neighborhood.”
"Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers"
— Realtor Magazine
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
PDF is hyperlinked. More on property values at ehtrust.org
“While the magnitude of the impact
varies, the studies uniformly indicate
that there is a significant impact on
residential property values from
installation of cell phone towers…”
— Report and Analysis by David E.
Burgoyne, ASA, SR/WA Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser to the FCC in
Docket 16-421
”In some areas with new towers,
property values have decreased by
up
to 20%.”- "Your new neighbor, a
cell tower, may impact the value
of your home" National Business
Post, 2022.
"...cell towers are concerning to many people
and drop property values."
"While most states do not require disclosure
of neighborhood nuisances, such as cell
towers or noisy neighbors, a few states do,
and more are likely to in the future."
— Real Estate Attorney, South Florida
Sun Sentinel, 2021
The California Association of Realtors’
Property Sellers Questionnaire specifically
lists “cell towers” on the disclosure form for
sellers of real estate.
— Click to go to the California
Association of Realtors’ Property Sellers
Questionnaire
(p. 3-4 under K. Neighborhood)
5G, CELL TOWERS AND WIRELESS
DECREASED PROPERTY VALUE
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G”
which was released in July 2021 and concluded that commonly used RFR
frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and
clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development
of embryos, fetuses and newborns.
A review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living
around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness
to cancer" reviewed the existing scientific literature and found
radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters
(Balmori 2022).
A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found changes
in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer
to cell antenna arrays (Zothansiama 2017).
A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health found higher exposure to cell network arrays linked to
higher mortality from all cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer
(Rodrigues 2021).
A 10-year study published in Science of the Total Environment on cell
phone network antennas by the local Municipal Health Department and
several universities in Brazil found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer
mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell phone
towers (Dode 2011).
A study commissioned by the Government of Styria, Austria found a
significant cancer incidence in the area around the RF transmitter as well as
significant exposure-effect relationships between radiofrequency radiation
exposure and the incidence of breast cancers and brain tumors (Oberfeld
2008).
A review published in Experimental Oncology found “alarming
epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of
long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation.” A year of
operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication
reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among the
population living nearby (Yakymenko 2011).
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH STUDIES
OUTDOOR LEVELS OF RF ARE INCREASING DUE TO THE
DENSIFICATION OF WIRELESS NETWORKS
An article published in The Lancet Planetary Health documents how RF
exposures are increasing and so is the scientific research linking exposure
to adverse biological effects. “It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing
anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century…”
A 2021 report by the French government on 5G analyzed more than 3,000
measurements and found that while RF levels had not yet significantly
increased, this was due to the lack of 5G traffic. Additional study specific to
5G in the 3500 MHz band with artificially generated traffic concluded that,
“initial results suggest an eventual increase of about 20% in overall
exposure.”
A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International
measured RF in several countries and found cell tower/base station
radiation to be the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor
areas. Urban areas had higher RF.
A study measuring RF exposure in the European cities of Basel, Ghent and
Brussels found the total RF exposure levels in outdoor locations had
increased up to 57.1% in one year (April 2011 to March 2012) and most
notably due to mobile phone base stations.
A 2018 study published in Oncology Letters documented “unnecessarily
high” RF levels in several locations in Sweden and concludes that "using
high-power levels causes an excess health risk to many people.”
A 2017 Swedish study of Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major
squares and the Swedish Parliament found that despite the architecturally
camouflaged RF-emitting antennas, the passive exposure was higher than
RF levels associated with non-thermal biological effects. The researchers
noted that the heaviest RF load falls on people working or living near
hotspots.
A 2016 study at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden documented
higher RF levels in areas where base station antennas were located closest
to people. Importantly, the RF from the downlink of UMTS, LTE, GSM base
station antennas contributed to most of the radiation levels.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
In 2020, the New Hampshire State Commission issued a Final Report with 15 recommendations to
“to protect people, wildlife, and the environment from harmful levels of radiation” after a year-long
investigation with numerous meetings and expert testimony.
A resolution to U.S. Congress to require the FCC
to commission an independent health study and
review of safety limits.
New measurement protocols needed to evaluate
high data rate, signal characteristics associated
with biological effects and summative effects of
multiple radiation sources.
Engage agencies with ecological knowledge to
develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect
the trees, plants, birds, insects and pollinators.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, FCC
should do an environmental impact statement as
to the effect on New Hampshire and the country
as a whole from 5G and the expansion of RF
wireless technologies.
Recommendations To Update RF Exposure
Regulations With New Science
Recommendations To Address Impacts to
Wildlife And Environment
Require setbacks of 1,640 feet for new wireless
antennas from residences, businesses and
schools.
Cell phones and wireless devices should be
equipped with updated software that stops cell
phones from radiating when positioned against
the body.
Establish RF radiation-free zones in commercial
and public buildings.
New Hampshire health agencies should educate
the public on minimizing RF exposure with public
service announcements on radio, television,
print.
New Hampshire schools and libraries should
replace Wi-Fi with hardwired connections.
Support statewide deployment of fiber optic
cable connectivity with wired connections inside
homes.
State should measure RFR and post maps with
RF measurements..
Require 5G structures to be labeled for RFR at
eye level and readable from nine feet away.
RFR signal strength measurements for cell sites
should be done by independent contractors.
NH professional licensure to offer RF
measurement education for home inspectors.
Warning signs posted in commercial and
Recommendations To Reduce Public Exposure
Recommendations To Utilize Safer Alternatives
Recommendations To Increase Transparency
public buildings.
"A likely explanation as to why
regulatory agencies have opted
to ignore the body of scientific
evidence demonstrating the
negative impact of cellphone
radiation is that those agencies
are “captured.”
NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE COMMISSION
2020 REPORT: 5G HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Insurance Companies Have Electromagnetic Field Exclusions
Electromagnetic field exclusions” are clear and common in most insurance
companies. It is applied as a market standard. This exclusion serves to
exclude cover for illnesses caused by long-term EMF (non-ionizing
radiation) exposure." — Complete Markets
"Exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: Bodily injury, personal injury,
advertising injury, or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of,
resulting from, caused or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation,
provided that such loss, cost or expense results from or is contributed to
by the hazardous properties of electromagnetic radiation.
— Portland Oregon Public School Insurance (page 30)
Insurance Plans Not Only Exclude EMF Damages, But Some Even
Exclude Defending Decision Makers From Their Actions in Regards
to Their Actions on EMFS
"This policy does not apply to and we will not provide a defense for: a.
bodily injury… arising out of ... exposure to or contact with
electromagnetic radiation… b. costs of abatement .. of EMF" or c. any
supervision, instruction, recommendation, warning or advice given or which
should have been given in connection with a or b. above."- City of Ann
Arbor Michigan Insurance Policy page 14.
Insurance Authorities Rate 5G as "High Risk."
5G mobile networks are classified as a “high,” “off-the-leash” risk. “Existing
concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic
fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a
potential long-term consequence” and “[a]s the biological effects of EMF in
general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for
health impairments may come with a long latency.”
— Swiss Re Institute (2019)
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Wireless Companies Rank EMF as a Risk
with High Impact
"Electro-magnetic signals emitted by mobile
devices and base stations may be found to
pose health risks, with potential impacts
including: changes to national legislation, a
reduction in mobile phone usage or litigation.”
— Vodaphone 2017 Report ranks EMF as a
"Principal Risk with “High” impact.
Wireless Companies Warn Shareholder
About Risk But Not People Living Near
Their Wireless Infrastructure
Crown Castle says:
"We cannot guarantee that claims relating
to radio frequency emissions will not arise
in the future or that the results of such studies
will not be adverse to us...If a connection
between radio frequency emissions and
possible negative health effects were
established, our operations, costs, or revenues
may be materially and adversely affected. We
currently do not maintain any significant
insurance with respect to these matters.”
Wireless Companies Define Pollution in
Their Own Policies as Including EMFs,
Microwaves and Non-ionizing Radiation.
Verizons Total Mobile Protection Plan
says: "Pollution" is defined as "any solid, liquid,
gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant
including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid,
alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric
fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field,
sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially
produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation
and/or waste."
"Some research has shown biological
effects from lower -level "non thermal"
exposure and people exposed at lower
levels have reported headaches, dizziness,
nausea, mood disorders, mental slowing
and memory loss."
Business Insurance White Paper,
The Next Asbestos: Five Emerging Risks
That Could Shift the Liability Landscape
5G, CELL TOWERS AND WIRELESS
LEGAL & LIABILITY ISSUESSHAREHOLDER WARNINGS
"In addition, the FCC has from time to time gathered
data regarding wireless device emissions, and its
assessment of the risks associated with using wireless
devices may evolve based on its findings. Any of these
allegations or changes in risk assessments could result in
customers purchasing fewer devices and wireless services,
could result in significant legal and regulatory liability, and
could have a material adverse effect on our business,
reputation, financial condition, cash flows and operating
results." (T- Mobile 10-K Report page 21)
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org
T-Mobile on 5G: Possible Changes to FCC Human
Exposure Limits for RF Could Impact Cash Flow
T-Mobile 10-K Report 2/2023
"Negative public perception of,
and regulations regarding, the
perceived health risks relating to
5G networks could undermine
market acceptance of our 5G
services" (page 13)
"We, along with equipment
manufacturers and other carriers,
are subject to current and
potential future lawsuits alleging
adverse health effects arising
from the use of wireless
handsets or from wireless
transmission equipment such
as cell towers."
T-Mobile advertises to the public about going "live"
but omits the warnings they give to shareholders
regarding 5G, regulatory changes and risk
perception.
A 2000 Ecolog Institute Report commissioned by
T-Mobile and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom
MobilNet recommended an exposure limit 1000x
lower than the FCC’s current power density limit
after reviewing the research on biological effects,
including impacts to the immune system, central
nervous system, hormones, cancer,
neurotransmitters and fertility.
Verizon 10-K Report
"Our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful
death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless
phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant
expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be
required to pay significant awards or settlements.”
Crown Castle 10-K Report
"We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency
emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such
studies will not be adverse to us...If a connection between radio
frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were
established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially
and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any
significant insurance with respect to these matters.”
AT&T 10-K Report
"In the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation
relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or
employees who use such technologies including, for example,
wireless devices. We may incur significant expenses defending
such suits or government charges and may be required to pay
amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could
materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.”
T- MOBILE 10-K Report
"Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product
liability for health or safety risks from wireless devices and
transmission equipment, as well as by changes to regulations or
radio frequency emission standards."
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org
Cell Tower Companies Warn Shareholders
of Risk From Cell Tower Radiation
Why Don't They Warn Families Living Near Cell Towers?
American Tower 10-K
"If a scientific study or court decision resulted in a finding
that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to
consumers, it could negatively impact our tenants and the
market for wireless services, which could materially and
adversely affect our business, results of operations or
financial condition. We do not maintain any significant
insurance with respect to these matters."
Nokia 10-K
"Although our products are designed to meet all relevant
safety standards and other recommendations and
regulatory requirements globally, we cannot guarantee we
will not become subject to product liability claims or be
held liable for such claims, which could have a material
adverse effect on us."
Qualcomm 10-K
"If wireless handsets pose health and safety risks, we may
be subject to new regulations, and demand for our
products and those of our licensees and customers may
decrease."
Ericsson Annual Report
"Any perceived risk or new scientific findings of adverse
health effects from mobile communication devices and
equipment could adversely affect us through a reduction
in sales or through liability claims."
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org
Cell Tower Companies Warn Shareholders
of Risk From Cell Tower Radiation
Why Don't They Warn Families Living Near Cell Towers?
CELL TOWERS NEAR SCHOOLS
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
This page is hyperlinked. Hover over City, school or study author to click on link.
Palo Alto, California: 1,500 feet
Copake, NewYork :1500 feet
Los Altos , California: 500 feet
Walnut City, California: 1,500 feet
Bar Harbor, Maine: 1,500 feet
Sallisaw, Oklahoma: 1,500 feet
Shelbourne , Massachusetts: 1,500 feet
Stockbridge, Massachusetts: 1,500 feet
San Diego County California 1,000 feet
Encinitas California:500 feet
Scarsdale New York: 500 feet
Ithaca, New York: 250 feet
Milpitas California: School Board asked Crown Castle and
T-Mobile to relocate the cell tower to remote location.
Ripon California: Sprint moved the cell tower at
elementary after students and staff developed cancer and
parents argued children should not be guinea pigs.
Alameda California cancelled cell tower contracts.
Dekalb County Georgia dropped school tower plan.
Palo Alto Unified School District Cell Tower Resolution
supports the City 1,500 setback and opposes cell tower
"on or in close proximity to schools to ensure individuals,
especially children, are protected from the potential
negative effects associated with radiation exposure."
West Linn-Wilsonville Oregon School Board prohibits cell
towers on school property.
Vancouver School Boards Resolution: 1,000 feet
Greenbelt Maryland Council opposes school towers.
The International Association of Firefighters passed a
Resolution opposing cell towers on its stations in 2004
after a study found neurological damage in firefighters
with antennas on their fire stations.
SCHOOL CELL TOWER SETBACKS
Many communities have policies, ordinances or zoning that
ensures cellular antennas are restricted to a specific minimum
distance from schools. Hempstead, New York requires a
special use permit for cell towers near schools.
Examples of cell tower/4G/5G small cell setbacks/preferred
placements for schools:
CELL TOWERS REMOVED FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS
SCHOOL BOARDS
DID YOU KNOW?
Montgomery County Maryland Schools policy does not
allow cell towers on elementary schools.
Prince George's County Maryland School Board
decided not to renew a cell tower construction master
leasing agreement that had allowed over 60 schools to
be marketed as cell tower sites.
Portland Oregon Schools ended new leases for cell
towers.
The New Hampshire State Commission 5G Health and
Environment Report recommends a setback of 1640
feet for schools.
The Collaborative For High Performance Schools
(Green building rating program) has LOW EMF Criteria
which includes no cell towers on school property.
500 meter buffer recommended for schools to reduce
liability and minimize risk (Pearce 2019)
A moratorium on 5G pending safety
A precautionary approach is better suited to State
obligations under international human rights law (Roda
and Perry 2014)
Increased cancer deaths near cell
Studies find: DNA Damage( Zothansiama 2017),
Diabetes (Meo 2015), Cognitive effects (Meo 2018),
sleep problems and headaches (Abdel-Rassoul 2007,
Levitt & Lai 2010, Shahbazi-Gahrouei 2013)
SCHOOL BOARDS THAT REVERSED COURSE
EXPERT RECOMMENDATIONS
THE EPA SCHOOL SITING GUIDELINES
Lists exposure to electromagnetic fields and the fall
distance as "potential hazards" from cell towers. The EPA
guidelines recommend schools "identify and evaluate cell
towers within ~200 feet of prospective school locations."
PUBLISHED RESEARCH
research (Frank 2020)
antennas (Rodrigues 2021)
3 resolutions opposing cell towers on school
property.
The District Office of Health and Safety developed a
"cautionary level" for radiofrequency radiation
10,000 times lower than FCC regulations because, "it
is believed that a more conservative level is necessary to
protect children, who represent a potentially vulnerable
and sensitive population."
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED CA SCHOOL DISTRICT
PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS
OPPOSE CELL TOWERS
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. For more setbacks go to ehtrust.org
Voted to oppose proposed cell tower.
Hosted parent information session with both the cell tower
company and Environmental Health Trust.
Sent letters to the school board in opposition to cell towers near the
school.
Voted to oppose cell tower after board approved towers on
schools.
Forest Grove Elementary Pacific Grove Middle School and Pacific
Grove High School PTAs sent a letter to City Council opposing a
high school cell tower.
NEELSVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PTA (MD)
HILLSMERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA (MD)
BRIARLAKE ELEMENTARY (GA)
PACIFIC GROVE (CA) PTAs
NEW YORK STATE PTA
-Adopted TWO Resolutions 2014
“CELLULAR PHONE TOWERS – 2014 (R-’07, R-’00); Resolved that the
New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers, Inc. support
legislation that would encourage local communities, including parents and
school officials, to regulate the placement of cell towers and cell tower
antennas particularly in schools and areas where children congregate,
and be it further Resolved that the New York State PTA support
continued research into the long-term effects of radio frequency and
microwave frequencies on humans especially as they apply to children,
and be it further Resolved that the New York State PTA seek to educate
parents and school officials as to the current debate over the placement
of cell towers and antennas.”
CONEJO PTA WANTS CELL TOWER
MOVED
Op-ed in Thousand Oaks Acorn Journal
The California PTA advocates on behalf
of children and families. They advocate
against electromagnetic field radiation
your schools.
The Conejo PTA urges the use of the
precautionary principle in making
decisions regarding public health this
means if something cannot be proven to
be safe it is best to avoid exposure. Most
people don't realize that the 1996 FCC
state standards for safe levels of
omission was actually based on a level
set by the American national standards
institute in 1982. Well this standard has
not been changed in 30 years it has
usurped all local authority."
"For this reason, Conejo Council PTA
made up of 9000 parents and teachers
has decided to take action. We're calling
on our local leaders to put in place
policies that would ensure parents are
notified when cell towers are propose
near schools and then encourage a
buffer zone around schools."
-Kim Huber, legislative chair of the
Conejo Council PTA.
PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS
OPPOSE CELL TOWERS
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Insurers rank wireless, cell tower, and 5G RFR non-ionizing
electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation as a “high” risk, comparing
the issue to lead and asbestos.
Most insurance plans have “electromagnetic field exclusions”
and do not insure for long-term RFR damages.
Additionally, some insurance plans will not provide a defense
for any supervision instruction or recommendation given "or
which should have been given" in connection to EMFs.
Wireless RFR and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are
defined as a type of “pollution” by wireless companies
themselves.
U.S. mobile operators have been unable to get insurance to
cover liabilities related to damages from long-term RFR
exposure.
Wireless companies warn their shareholders of RFR risk but do
not warn users of their products, nor do the companies warn
the people exposed to emissions from their infrastructure.
An Uninsurable Risk?When a new cell tower or
wireless network is proposed,
the first question to ask is:
"Do you have insurance for
damages from long-term
exposure to the
radiofrequency radiation
(RFR)?" Usually the answer is
"No."
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
This PDF is hyperlinked. For more on legal liability issues go to ehtrust.org
5G, CELL TOWERS AND WIRELESS
LEGAL & LIABILITY ISSUES
Verizon Total Mobile Protection Plan
Example of an EMF Exclusion in an Insurance Plan
“The National Toxicology Program studies clearly showed that non-ionizing cell
phone radiofrequency radiation radiation can cause cancers and other adverse
health effects. An important lesson that should be learned is that we cannot
assume any current or future wireless technology such as 5G is safe without
adequate testing.”
— Ronald Melnick PhD 28 year scientist at National Institutes of Health
“I recommend public health organizations raise awareness and educate the public
on why and how to reduce our daily exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation.
Protective public health policy is needed now. It is time for regulatory bodies to fully
evaluate the research and develop science based exposure limits that truly protect
the public and the environment.”
— Linda S. Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program of the
National Institutes of Health.
"Now we have 5G rolling out in massive quantities, without due diligence to
determine are these sources of radiation safe not only for humans but for wildlife.
And the answer is, no, they are not."
— Albert M. Manville II, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University,
Wildlife Biologist (17 years), retired from Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
“Given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable
degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and
neuromas is high.”
— Christopher Portier PhD former Director of the United States National
Center for Environmental Health at the CDC, former Director of the U.S.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
“We should not wait to protect children’s brains. The science is now clear and
compelling indicating that wireless technology is harmful to health, especially to for
children. Wireless radiation is repeating the history of lead, tobacco and DDT.”
— Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust,
founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
of the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, and
a member of the team of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
scientists who were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY ON WIRELESS SAFETY
EXPERT VOICES
Many communities have setbacks for cell towers
and small cells.
Shelburne, MA: 3,000 feet for schools and 1,500 feet for
homes; no new wireless antennas in residential zones
Copake, NY: 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches or
other buildings containing dwelling units
Sallisaw, OK: No commercial wireless telecommunications
towers within 1,500 of homes.
Calabasas, CA: No “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications
facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools
Bedford, NH: 750 feet from residentially-zoned property
Scarsdale, NY: No wireless facilities within 500 feet from
homes, schools, parks, and houses of worship
Walnut City, California: 1,500 feet
Stockbridge, Massachusetts: 1,000 feet
San Diego County California: 1,000 feet (small cells)
Bar Harbor Maine: 1500 setback for schools
School Boards
Palo Alto, California: School Board supports the City of
Palo Alto immediately establishing local municipal zoning
setback rules of 1,500 feet or more from an operating
wireless transmitter and a school site.
West Linn-Wilsonville Oregon School Board prohibits cell
towers on school property.
Los Angeles California School District: Resolutions
opposing cell towers on school property and a cautionary
level for radiofrequency radiation 10,000 times lower than
FCC limits.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked. For more setbacks go to ehtrust.org
CITIES AND TOWNS WITH STRONG ORDINANCES
SETBACKS FOR CELL ANTENNAS
The 2022 study "Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of
Columbia, South Carolina, USA" published in World Academy of Sciences Journal authored by Tarmo
Koppel and Lennart Hardell, MD of the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation found the highest
RF exposure readings were registered close to cell phone base station antennas mounted on top of utility
poles, street lamps or traffic lights.
Close Range Exposure
Close Range Exposure
Close Range Exposure
“I am calling on my industry to bring safer technology to market. The current
implementation of technology is not safe. Take a good look at the science. This is
about our children’s future. Do not be lulled into believing that 25-year-old standards
can protect the youngest and most vulnerable. They simply cannot.”
— Frank Clegg, Former President of Microsoft Canada, CEO of Canadians for
Safe Technology
“A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless
communication.”
— Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD , advisory to World Health Organization
international Agency for Research on Cancer, Department of Oncology,
University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (retired) , leads the Environment and
Cancer Research Foundation
“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be
ignored. If the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer
were to meet to review all of the evidence, we believe the weight of evidence supports
a new determination- that wireless radiofrequency radiation is a human carcinogen.”
— Anthony B. Miller MD, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public
Health of the University of Toronto. Former Senior Epidemiologist for the
International Agency for Research on Cancer and former Director of the
Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada
“Most parents believe that cellphones were safety-tested before they came on the
market. We assume that our federal health and environmental agencies regularly
review the latest research and ensure that these incredible devices are safe. They do
not. Children are not little adults. As we sadly learned with early childhood lead
exposures leaving long-lasting impairments, the developing brain is particularly
susceptible.”
— Jerome Paulson, MD , Professor Emeritus, George Washington University,
Milliken School of Public Health, former Chair of American Academy of
Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health
“The exposure levels of the Federal Communications Commission are totally outdated
and do not protect the health of the public, especially of children. I urge you to take
strong and active steps to reduce exposure of children and staff to excessive levels of
radiofrequency EMFS within your schools."
— David O. Carpenter, M.D. Director, Institute for Health and the
Environment University at Albany
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
THE URGENT NEED FOR SAFER TECHNOLOGY
EXPERT VOICES
FCC human exposure limits were adopted in
1996 after the EPA was defunded from
creating safety limits. They have not properly
reviewed these limits since 1996.
FCC’s human exposure limits for the RF
microwaves emitted by 5G, 4G, cell towers, cell
phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart devices and
wireless networks are based on outdated
science and faulty assumptions.
The limits are irrelevant to modern-day
technologies and do not reflect the way people
are exposed to RF and actually use technology
in the 21st century.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Reasons Why FCC's 1996 Limits
Do Not Protect:
Heating-Based Only
FCC limits are heat-based “thermal” limits. This means they
primarily protect against the overheating of tissue from
RF. FCC’s limits are not based on protecting against non-
heating biological effects such as cancer, oxidative stress,
headaches, behavioral problems, memory damage,
disrupting bee behavior, tree damage etc.
Short-Term Impacts Only
FCC limits are based on protecting against acute effects.
No federal report or research review exists regarding
safety from chronic, long-term RF exposures from cell
towers, Wi-Fi and wireless networks in the home, school
and workplace. The FDA nominated the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform animal studies
designed to mimic a lifetime of human cell phone
exposure. Cancer and DNA damage was found. Another
large-scale animal study used cell tower level exposures
and found the same tumors as the NTP. However, the FDA
rejected these findings.
Children Are Not Protected
FCC limits are misleadingly presented as being “designed
to protect children. When safety thresholds were
developed decades ago, the science investigating RF
impacts to children’s developing brains did not exist.
Current research concludes the limits should be hundreds
of times more protective for children because they are
more vulnerable.
FCC EXPOSURE LIMITS DO NOT PROTECT
OUTDATED FCC REGULATIONS FOR RF RADIATION
No Risk Analysis or Review of Totality of Science
No agency has reviewed all of the latest science. Usually the EPA and
FDA use risk assessment to characterize the nature and magnitude of
risks to human health for various populations such as children and
pregnant women. The EPA also estimates ecological risks, including
plants, birds, other wildlife and aquatic life. When groundbreaking
studies are published, a quantitative risk analysis of the data is
performed. This has never been done for RF.
“The FCC and FDA have failed in their obligation to prescribe
safe RFR guidelines produced from wireless communication
devices to protect the public health and safety. Devices are
becoming more sophisticated, and their usage is as common to
daily life as brushing your teeth.”
— Pittsburgh Law Review “The FCC Keeps Letting Me Be: Why
Radiofrequency Radiation Standards Have Failed to Keep Up With
Technology” by Hala Mouzaffar
”The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public
relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve
undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for
researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these
hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco
tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently
supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless
industry does indeed have something to hide.”
— Norm Alster in the Harvard Press Book “Captured Agency: How the
Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries
it Presumably Regulates”
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
FCC EXPOSURE LIMITS DO NOT PROTECT
OUTDATED FCC REGULATIONS FOR RF RADIATION
“The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, the FDA has
no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.”
— Ellen Flannery, Director, FDA Policy Center for Devices and Radiological
Health to a California mother with a cell tower on her street who asked the
FDA about safety, July 11, 2022
"As a Federal research agency, the NCI is not involved in the regulation of radio
frequency telecommunications infrastructure and devices, nor do we make
recommendations for policies related to this technology"
— National Cancer Institute letter to Denise Ricciardi, member of the New
Hampshire State Commission on 5G, July 30, 2020
The ACS does “not have any official position or statement on whether or not
radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell phones towers, or other sources is a
cause of cancer.”
— American Cancer Society Website
"EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency
matters.”
— Lee Ann B. Veal Director, EPA Radiation Protection Division Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, July 8, 2020 Letter to Theodora Scarato
Fact: There are no scientific reports by the CDC on cell tower radiation safety, nor does
the agency have staff with expertise monitoring the science and evaluating risk. Public
information requests found that several CDC website pages on radio frequency
were found to be drafted with a wireless industry consultant.
"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." — U.S. Department of Interior Letter to
FCC, 2014
Fact: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project has not reviewed the
science since 1993. The WHO webpages on cell phones and cell towers are not
based on a published scientific review. The WHO EMF Project webpages were written
by a scientist who used wireless industry money to start the WHO EMF Project and
who is now a consultant to industry. In contrast, the WHO International Agency
for Research on Cancer (a separate WHO entity vetted for conflicts of
interest) determined RF radiation to be a Class 2 B “possible” carcinogen in
2011. Many scientists now state the evidence showing cancer has increased.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
A REGULATORY GAP
No Federal Agency Ensuring Cell Tower Wireless Safety
There is no U.S. government agency with oversight for cell tower radiation health effects: no research
reviews, no reports, no environmental monitoring, no risk mitigation and no post market health surveillance
for the daily, full body radio-frequency (RF) radiation exposure from cell towers.
Blue text is hyperlinked to source.
EHTRUST.ORG
LANDMARK FEDERAL COURT RULING AGAINST THE FCC
On August 13, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ignored scientific evidence and
failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its 1996
regulations adequately protect the public against all the harmful effects of
wireless radiation.
FCC'S REFUSAL TO UPDATE 1996 LIMITS
The legal case challenged the FCC’s 2019 decision not to update its 1996
regulations regarding allowable radiofrequency radiation (RF) exposures from
wireless technologies - including 5G, cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, and
wireless networks.
EVIDENCE OF HARMFUL EFFECTS BELOW FCC LIMITS
FCC limits are based on the belief that heating is the only proven harm from
RF. Over 11,000 pages of evidence - 447 exhibits in 27 Volumes - was
submitted to the Court documenting biological effects and illness from wireless
radiation exposure below heating levels. Research has found brain damage,
headaches, memory problems, reproduction damage, synergistic effects,
nervous system impacts, brain cancer, genetic damage, as well as
harm to trees, birds, bees, and wildlife.
children's vulnerability
long-term exposure
environmental impacts
new technological developments
and the ubiquity of wireless
how FCC's cell phone tests only
measure heat and allow a space
between the phone and body
THE COURT ORDER
The Court ordered the FCC to
provide a reasoned determination as
to whether the evidence warrants a
change to 1996 RF limits especially in
regards to:
impacts to children
testimony of persons injured by
wireless radiation
impacts to the developing brain
impacts to the reproductive
system
impacts to wildlife and
THE COURT FINDINGS
The ruling stated that the FCC's
"arbitrary and capricious" decision
to maintain their 25 year old
exposure limits did not address
evidence indicating "non-cancer"
harm such as:
the environment
P A G E 1 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
TIMELINE
1980s: EPA had robust research
program and was tasked to develop
RF safety limits by U.S. Science
Advisory Board.
1995: EPA presents to FCC on the
EPA timeline for its development of
human exposure RF limits which
would include both thermal effects
and non thermal effects.
1996: EPA is fully defunded by
Congress amid heavy lobbying for
Telecom Act and halts all research on
RF.
1996: The FCC adopts RF limits
developed by industry-tied groups -
based on short term heating -
thermal- effects from high power
exposures (based on studies of small
animals exposed to high RF levels for
under an hour).
1999: FDA requests the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) study RF
because of the lack of safety data on
long-term exposure.
2008/2009 Congressional Hearings
2011: Wireless RF classified as a
"possible" Class 2B Carcinogen by International Agency for Research
on Cancer.
2012: GAO Report recommends
rules be reassessed to reflect current
use patterns and recent science.
2013-2019: FCC opens record on RF
limits - gets over 1000 submissions.
2018: NTP/NIH releases $30M
animal study concluding “clear
evidence” of cancer. FDA rejects the findings.
2019: FCC closes record, decides not
to update its 1996 wireless RF limits.
2020: Cases filed against FCC.
2021: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C
Circuit ruled that the FCC decision
not to change human exposure limits
and regulations was "arbitrary and
capricious." FCC ordered to respond.
2021: No FCC response to Court, so
EHT and others filed request to
refresh record.
FACTSHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST ET AL. V. FCC
COURT RULING ON FCC'S LACK OF ADEQUATE REVIEW FOR
WIRELESS EXPOSURE LIMITS
Timeline is hyperlinked to sources.
EHTRUST.ORGP A G E 2 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
FCC Compliance Does Not Ensure Safety
Most of the public assumes that current FCC safety limits
for cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, 5G, and wireless
networks are based upon an up to date robust review of
all relevant research. This assumption of safety is now
clearly documented to be erroneous.
Lack of Oversight by Health and Environmental Agencies
The ruling reveals a lack of accountability with our federal
health agencies regarding wireless radiation. The EPA, CDC,
NIOSH, and NCI did not submit any reports to the Court,
revealing that none of these agencies has reviewed the
science on health effects to ensure safety for the public.
The U.S. has no pre- market safety testing for health effects,
no post-market surveillance, no environmental monitoring,
and no meaningful interagency coordination.
FDA’s Dismissal of Harm Deemed Insufficient
The Court states the FCC improperly relied on the FDA's
conclusions that RF limits did not need an update.
The FDA's submissions were described by the Court as
“cursory” and "insufficient." Although the FDA later
released a literature review, it was only focused on cell
phones, not cell towers, Wi-Fi nor 5G technology. It also
was only focused on cancer, further confirming the fact that
U.S. agencies have failed to evaluate the myriad of effects
documented in scientific studies, such as brain, immune,
fertility and endocrine impacts. A U.S. government review of
the full body of recent science has simply
never been done.
The Court Did Not Agree That "Cell Phones Do Not
Cause Cancer"
Contrary to the wireless industry's recent claims,
the Court did not make a scientific determination regarding
cancer. The ruling simply stated that in regards to
cancer- the FCC passed the minimum legal requirement
for adequate review because it (at least) referenced why
the FCC dismissed cancer evidence. The FCC cited the
rejections of NIH studies by the FDA and of ICNIRP (a
small group with no oversight and whose members have
a long history of industry ties).
Children's Vulnerability and Effects of Long Term
Exposure Ignored by the FCC
The Court states the FCC “dismissed” the American
Academy of Pediatrics recommendations to strengthen
regs and ensure children and pregnant women are
protected. The Court found the FCC failed to explain
why it ignored research indicating children's developing
brains are more sensitive. Children will have a lifetime of
exposure, yet the FCC was found to ignore the issue of
impacts from long term exposure.
Wildlife Remains Unprotected
FCC’s limits were designed in 1996 to protect only
humans, not flora or fauna. The Court found that
the FCC had “completely failed” to address the
“substantive evidence of potential environmental harms”
on the record, which included science showing serious
impacts to birds, bees, trees, and plants.
"the Commission’s failure to provide a
reasoned or even relevant explanation of
its position that RF radiation below the
current limits does not cause health
problems unrelated to cancer renders its
explanation as to the effect of RF
radiation on children arbitrary and
capricious. "
— 2021 EHT et al. v. FCC
Amicus of NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
Amicus of Attorney Joe Sandri including declaration of Dr. Linda Birnbaum,
former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Amicus of Catherine Kleiber
Amicus of the Building Biology Institute
PETITIONERS: Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris,
Theodora Scarato, Children's Health Defense, Michelle Hertz, Petra Brokken, Dr. David
Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, Paul
Stanley M.Ed.
KEY RESOURCES: Court Ruling 8/13/2021, Evidence (11,000 pages), EHT Press
Conference
Amicus Briefs
EHTrust.org for more.
FACTSHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST ET AL. V. FCC
FCC'S LACK OF ADEQUATE REVIEW FOR WIRELESS
RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS
Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al (2007). Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. NeuroToxicology
Balmori A. (2002) Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to
cancer. Environmental Research
Dode, A. C et al (2011). Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state,
Brazil. Science of The Total Environment
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis
study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at
1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology
Hardell, L., & Koppel, T. (2022). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden.
Reviews on Environmental Health.
Khurana et al. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health
Koppel et al (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas
positioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research
Levitt & Lai, H. (2011). Corrigendum: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and
other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews
López et al (2021). What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and
epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environmental Research
Meo et al (2019). Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health. American
Journal of Men’s Health
Meo et al (2015a). 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. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research
Roda, C., & Perry, S. (2014). Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: Scientific challenges and human rights protection.
Environmental Science & Policy
Rodrigues et al (2021). The Effect of Continuous Low-Intensity Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Radio Base Stations to Cancer
Mortality in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Santini et al. (2003). Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine
Thamilselvan et al (2021) Micronuclei analysis in people residing within 25 m of radiation-exposed areas around mobile towers in Chennai,
India: An observational study. Journal of International Oral Health
Yakymenko et al (2011). Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: Evidences from radars and mobile
communication systems. Experimental Oncology
Zothansiama et al (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans
residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine
Belyaev et al (2022) Possible health risks from exposure to microwaves from base stations, Conference Paper Department of Radiobiology,
Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center *Conference paper
REFERENCES/CITATIONS
P A G E 1 1 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
5G
Betzalel et al. (2018). The human skin as a sub-THz receiver—Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environmental Research
Betzalel et al. 2017). The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology
Dasgupta et al. (2022). Transcriptomic and Long-Term Behavioral Deficits Associated with Developmental 3.5 GHz Radiofrequency Radiation
Exposures in Zebrafish. Environmental Science & Technology Letters
Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
Frank, J. W. (2021). Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: What about the precautionary principle? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no
conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters
Hardell, L., & Nilsson, M. (2023). Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from
Radiofrequency Radiation. Annals of Case Reports.
Nilsson M, Hardell L. (2023) Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their
Office. Ann Clin Case Rep. 8: 2378.
Hinrikus et al. (2022). Possible health effects on the human brain by various generations of mobile telecommunication: A review based
estimation of 5G impact. International Journal of Radiation Biology
Kostoff et al. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters
Nasim, I., & Kim, S. (2019). Adverse Impacts of 5G Downlinks on Human Body. 2019 SoutheastCon IEEE
Russell, C. L. (2018). 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research
Yang et al. (2022). Effects of Acute Exposure to 3500 MHz (5G) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Anxiety-Like Behavior and the
Auditory Cortex in Guinea Pigs. Bioelectromagnetics
Increasing Exposures From Expanding 5G Networks and Close Proximity “Small Cell” Antennas
Baltrėnas et al.(2012). Research and evaluation of the intensity parameters of electromagnetic fields produced by mobile communication
antennas. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management
Bhatt et al. (2017). Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental
Epidemiology
Bonato et al. (2022). Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones. 2022 Microwave Mediterranean Symposium
Carlberg et al. (2019). High ambient radiofrequency radiation in Stockholm city, Sweden. Oncology Letters
El-Hajj et al. (2020). Radiation Analysis in a Gradual 5G Network Deployment Strategy. 2020 IEEE 3rd 5G World Forum (5GWF)
Hardell et al. (2018). Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A case
report. Oncology Letters
Hardell et al. (2017). High radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Old Town: An exposimeter study including the Royal Castle, Supreme
Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament. Molecular and Clinical Oncology
Hardell, L., Koppel, T., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., & Hedendahl, L. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in
Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology
Koppel et al. (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas
positioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research
Koppel et al. (2019). Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high
exposure apartment. Oncology Letters
REFERENCES/CITATIONS
P A G E 1 2 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
Koppel, T., & Hardell, L. (2022). Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA. World
Academy of Sciences Journal
Mazloum et al. (2019). RF-EMF exposure induced by mobile phones operating in LTE small cells in two different urban cities. Annals of
Telecommunications
Urbinello et al. (2014). Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across
European cities. Environmental Research, 134, 134–142.
4G LTE
Broom et al. (2019). Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J
Mice. Bioelectromagnetics
Choi et al. (2020). Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease
Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Scientific Reports
Lv et al. (2014). The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clinical
Neurophysiology
Malik et al. (2021). Short- and long-duration exposures to cell-phone radiofrequency waves produce dichotomous effects on phototactic
response and circadian characteristics of locomotor activity rhythm in zebrafish, Danio rerio. Biological Rhythm Research
Oh, J. J., Byun, S.-S., Lee, S. E., Choe, G., & Hong, S. K. (2018). Effect of Electromagnetic Waves from Mobile Phones on Spermatogenesis in the Era
of 4G-LTE. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1801798.
Özdemir et al. (2021). The effect of 4.5 G (LTE Advanced-Pro network) mobile phone radiation on the optic nerve. Cutaneous and Ocular
Toxicology
Souffi et al. (2022). Exposure to 1800 MHz LTE electromagnetic fields under proinflammatory conditions decreases the response strength
and increases the acoustic threshold of auditory cortical neurons. Scientific Reports
Wei et al. (2019). Modulation of resting-state brain functional connectivity by exposure to acute fourth-generation long-term evolution
electromagnetic field: An fMRI study. Bioelectromagnetics
Yang et al. (2021). Functional and network analyses of human exposure to long-term evolution signal. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research International
Yang et al. (2017). Long-Term Evolution Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Modulates the Resting State EEG on Alpha and Beta Bands. Clinical
EEG and Neuroscience
Yu et al. (2020). Long-term exposure to 4G smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation diminished male reproductive potential
by directly disrupting Spock3–MMP2-BTB axis in the testes of adult rats. Science of The Total Environment
REFERENCES/CITATIONS
P A G E 1 3 | E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H T R U S T | E H T R U S T . O R G
Bold blue on this PDF are hyperlinked.
American Academy of Pediatrics Webpage Excerpts
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Cc:Ying Dillaha
Subject:Fw: Questions regarding environmental degradation at Vista Heights
Date:Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:43:16 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for the
upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record unless a
councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming council
meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that community
voices are included in written communications of council meetings as requested, rather than
at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently leave out some minority
voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Ying Dillaha <ydillaha@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 3:38 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; Sheila Mohan <smohan@cupertino.gov>; Liang Chao
<lchao@cupertino.gov>; J.R. Fruen <jrfruen@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore
<kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Hung Wei <hwei@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvas.org>
Subject: Fw: Questions regarding environmental degradation at Vista Heights
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk:
Please include this email in the written communications for items not on the agenda. Thank you.
Dear Mayor Mohan and Cupertino Council Members,
I am a concerned citizen of Cupertino and a resident in the Linda Vista neighborhood. I am deeply
concerned with the substantial earthwork that has occurred prior to permitting at the site of the
proposed Vista Heights Project (Santa Clara County APNs 356-05-007, 356-05-008, 356-27-026) and
may continue to occur without City permits and without CEQA review or Government Agencies
issuing permits - please see photo below.
We understand that Code enforcement has issued violations, and required slope stabilization and
sediment control. We hope Staff can provide a full picture to clarify what has happened, what is
currently happening, and what we can expect in the future. Transparency is urgently needed.
Please ask staff:
1. What is the status of the Vista Heights Project application?
2. Are there any pending code violations related to the Vista Heights Project (APNs 356-05-007,
356-05-008, 356-27-026)?
3. Does work continue on the property at this time? If so, what does it entail?
4. Has staff seen/travelled the entire extent of construction work on the site? How often does
staff visit the site? When was the last visit?
5. What is the scope/extent of unauthorized grading, road building and earthwork on the site
(including roads, trenches) in miles? How steep are the roads and trenches? Are any of the
new roads steeper than 30 degrees slope?
6. What is the scope/extent of vegetation removal (how many trees were removed? How much
vegetation was cleared, in acres?)
7. Does staff have a full description and a map of all the new roads, trenches, trails and
vegetation clearings areas?
8. Has there been any work on the Project site that is within a creek bed or crosses tributaries of
Stevens Creek, or impacts wetlands? If so, have the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the California State Water Resources Control Board been notified?
9. What remediations are required of the applicant, and what is the status of these
remediations?
10. Will staff require that the land be restored to its original contours (all trenches and roadwork
be eliminated) and the vegetation restored? If not, why not?
11. Will staff require CEQA review and state agency permitting for remediation work? If not, why
not?
12. Can staff issue a Cease and Desist order immediately?
13. Can the city stop any further processing of any applications for the Vista Heights Project until
the violations have been remedied?
Thank you, we hope staff responds to these questions as soon as possible,
Regards,
Ying Sosic
Cupertino resident