Recommendations to City of Sacramento

These are 5G Awareness Now’s recommendations to the City of Sacramento for amending the City’s cell antenna ordinance to be more protective of health and property.

Download PDF here :


A. Purpose

The purpose of this correspondence is to identify the problems posed by the 5G antenna network that is currently being deployed in the City of Sacramento and to make specific recommendations to the City that will ensure a 5G roll-out that is in line with the City’s goals and duties to protect the health, property, privacy, and rights of all Sacramento residents.

Our primary recommendation is to keep cell antennas as far away from residences as possible, without running afoul of any federal laws; ideally 1,000 to 1,500 hundred feet.

B. Problems Posed By The 5G Antenna Network

1. Negative Health Consequences and Public Safety Concerns

The evidence already provided to the City of Sacramento regarding the health effects caused by microwave radiation exposure clearly demonstrates that exposures from these antennas can cause harm and constitute a threat/risk to the health and well-being of any Sacramento resident in proximity to a cell antenna. Some of the evidence provided includes:

a. A December 2018 article from The Lancet, one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world – https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

b. The 2011 World health Organization classification of radio frequency radiation (which includes the frequencies of microwave radiation being emitted by the antenna network currently being installed) as a possible carcinogen – https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

c. The Bio-initiative Report 2012 (updated in 2017 and 2019) – A Rationale for Biologically based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMR exposures around 3 to 6 uW/m2) –https://bioinitiative.org/

d. A comprehensive review by Dr. Martin Pall of research showing various harms caused by electromagnetic fields (which includes the radiation emitted by the 5G antenna network) – https://5gawarenessnow.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

e. Two letters from experts (Dr. Sharon Goldberg and Dr. Paul Herox) with multiple published works and expertise in the negative effects of microwave radiation exposure on human health. These letters were provided by these experts, to our group, to be shared with Sacramento City Council. (See attachments)

f. Recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for reducing exposure to “cell phone radiation,” i.e. the radiation emitted by the 5G antenna network. Installing a cell antenna right outside of children’s windows (as has been done in my family’s case) directly contradicts this recommendation from the AAP, exposing said children to very high levels of inescapable radiation. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Cell-Phone-Radiation-Childrens-Health.aspx

f. The dozens, possibly hundreds of correspondences received by the city from members of the public expressing public safety concerns over the deployment of 5G technology are evidence that the antennas are already having a negative effect on mental health and well-being of some Sacramento residents.

This information, as well as much additional information, has been provided to the City of Sacramento and was requested that this information be entered into the City’s public record. Additional information on the negative health effects of microwave radiation exposure can be found here https://mdsafetech.org/ and here. https://ehtrust.org/science/

Measurements presented by the City of Sacramento at the September 3rd City Council meeting definitively show that ground level exposure from the “small” cell antennas currently being installed is many times higher (4G frequency antennas – 0.6% of, or 167 times below, FCC safety limit; 5G frequency antennas – less than 2.5% of, or less than 40 times below) than ground level exposure from previous generation antennas, which according to the City of Sacramento’s 5G safety website, is thousands of times below the FCC safety limit. https://imgur.com/a/r8TRdJP Exposure at or near the height of the antenna, such as exposure at a nearby two story home, will be even higher than the ground level exposures referenced above, potentially approaching or even exceeding the FCC general population exposure limits. For example, exposure in my nieces’ bedroom, which is 60 feet away from the nearest antenna, was measured to be 4.6% of the FCC limit, roughly 22 times below the limit. https://imgur.com/a/56wC2sy Exposure in our front yard, near the height of the antenna exceeds FCC general population exposure limits. All of this information clearly demonstrates that the “small” cell antennas currently being installed near our homes are going to expose Sacramento residents to significantly more microwave radiation than previous generation antennas and therefore represent a greater threat to public safety and well-being.

In addition to the evidence demonstrating the negative health effects of microwave radiation exposure, the City of Sacramento, the FCC, and Verizon, have all failed to provide evidence that the specific conditions we are being subjected to (constant exposure to pulsed, data modulated, microwave radiation greater than, or equal to 4.6% of the FCC limit, in the frequency range of 1.9-28Ghz) have no long term negative health consequences for children, adults, seniors, individuals with pacemakers, or individuals suffering from electromagnetic sensitivity, a federally recognized disability. https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/indoor-environmental-quality/recommendations-for-accommodations This evidence has been repeatedly requested by members of our group since March 2019. It is clear from the February 7, 2019 Senate Commerce hearing that this evidence has not been provided because it does not exist. https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks

The only assurance of safety provided to the public by either The City of Sacramento, Verizon, or the FCC, has been that exposure from the antennas is likely under the FCC safety limit, as long as we do not go near the height of the antennas. Compliance with FCC guidelines is not a guarantor of safety. The FCC limits are over 20 years old. They are some of the highest allowable limits in the world and based solely on a thermal model for damage that is contradicted by thousands of peer-reviewed, scientific studies. Many of those studies were published just recently. The inadequacy of the FCC safety limit is best spelled out in this letter from the Environmental Protection Agency. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/4c0f61dc30c3d6bb27d90f53a57c616e.pdf

2. Negative Financial Impact

In addition to the health problems and public safety concerns caused by these antennas, the negative effect of cell antennas on property values and home salability has been well documented by the realtor industry. https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/ For example, a 2014 survey by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy surveyed 1,000 respondents and found that “94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed…say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna,” and “79 percent 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 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.” https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers A recent CBS13 news report showed that a Folsom daycare was going to lose half their enrolled children due to a cell antenna being installed near the day care. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/4113246-cbs13-investigates-could-a-new-cell-tower-hurt-you-financially/

All of this evidence clearly demonstrates that most people do not want to be near these cell antennas, let alone have one installed near their home. The evidence also clearly demonstrates that installing these antennas near homes will have a direct negative financial impact on nearby homeowners.

3. Privacy and Security Risk

The small cell antennas currently being installed in Sacramento also represent a privacy and security risk to nearby residents. https://siliconangle.com/2019/08/09/report-black-hat-escalating-cyberthreats-swirl-around-apple-iot-5g/ These privacy and security issues have been the primary concern regarding 5G in the mainstream media. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-cybersecurity-5g/eu-warns-of-5g-cybersecurity-risks-stops-short-of-singling-out-china-idUSKBN1WO1IM In fact, just last month, Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke of the potential privacy and security threats of “smart cities,” of which the 4G/5G antenna networks will be an integral part of. https://youtu.be/rOLIHjG4NKU

The 2017 agreement between the City and Verizon (see attached) makes it clear that the small cell antennas will be collecting and transmitting data to be stored by Verizon, as well as the City, but is not fully transparent in what data is being collected, or how it is being collected. Page 97 of the agreement highlights the City of Sacramento’s responsibility for obtaining consent for this data collection stating “The City agrees that it is solely responsible for obtaining any and all required consents in connection with any use of the Verizon Services or the Hardware Products and that such consent will be compliant with all Applicable Law, including data protection legislation and other privacy laws, rules, and regulations.” I do not see how this consent could have possibly been obtained when people are not even being informed about antenna installations.

4. ADA and Fair Housing Compliance

Another problem posed the 5G antenna network is ADA and Fair Housing Compliance. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a disabling characteristic, recognized by the Federal Access Board since 2002. https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/indoor-environmental-quality/recommendations-for-accommodations The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act is “a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.” https://adata.org/learn-about-ada By installing these antennas all throughout Sacramento, especially near homes, the City and the telecoms will be discriminating against individuals with EMS.

5. Aesthetic Considerations

Finally, there are the aesthetic problems caused by cell antennas installed near homes. The most obvious is that the antennas are ugly, unwanted, visual clutter. No one wants to or should have to look out their window and see one of these antennas staring back at them. This is the view from my nieces’ bedroom window. https://imgur.com/a/r8fA4e0 We can see it from our front yard and our back yard as well. The full view of these antennas is even uglier. https://imgur.com/l49g3uR

The most simple and effective way to prevent these problems is to not allow cell antennas near residential dwellings, period. Distance is the most powerful tool at your disposal to reduce microwave radiation exposure and resulting health impacts and public safety concerns. The adverse financial impacts caused by cell antennas are also wiped away if the antennas are not permitted near homes. Keeping them away from residences will also limit the amount of potentially sensitive, private, in-home, digital activities being recorded by the antennas. Keeping antennas away from residences helps to ensure ADA and Fair Housing compliance by not discriminating against EMS sufferers inside their living spaces. Finally, prohibiting placements of cell antennas near homes prevents the aesthetic beauty of neighborhoods from being tarnished by these hideous antennas. Put simply, keeping cell antennas away from homes is the most simple and most effective way to keep the public safe and ensure that the quiet enjoyment of homes and neighborhoods is not disturbed.

C. City of Sacramento’s Duty to Protect Sacramento Residents From The Problems Caused By Cell Antennas.

The problems caused by installing cell antennas near Sacramento residences constitute a direct attack on both the U.S. and California constitutional rights of Sacramento residents. The California Constitution states:

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS — SECTION 1. “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

The U.S. Constitution has similar provisions. California elected officials, including Sacramento’s City Council members, have each taken oaths to honor and uphold the Federal and California State Constitutions. As such, you may not sit idly by while Verizon, AT&T, and other telecoms trample on the rights of your constituents.

D. City of Sacramento’s Legal Authority To Protect Sacramento Residents From The Problems Caused By Cell Antennas.

Up until very recently, when the public has complained to the City of Sacramento about 5G or cell antennas in general, the City’s response has been that the City does not have the legal authority to regulate cell antennas. This response is oversimplified and ultimately inaccurate. Sacramento absolutely has the legal authority to regulate cell antennas in a wide variety of ways. This section will cover Federal and State law, as well as case law, that grants or upholds this authority.

1. Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A)

The most important text regarding the City’s ability to regulate cell antennas is “Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.” This is the federal law that preempts all other law regarding the City’s authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities, i.e. cell antennas.

The only limitations relevant to our recommendations that are imposed on the City’s authority in the TCA are:

“(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—

(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”

As well as,

“(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

It could be argued that practically any action taken by the city to regulate cell antennas would not prohibit the provision of personal wireless services as most of Sacramento already has good coverage and users are already able to make calls, send texts, and even watch videos from most locations in the City. An even more concrete argument is that prohibiting placement of cell antennas near homes does not prohibit the provision of wireless service because the antennas do not need to be particularly close to users to provide a strong signal. According to a Verizon product demonstration video titled “The Power of Millimeter Wave,” Verizon’s 5G millimeter wave antennas work very well (almost 1GB/s download speeds, near max) at ranges of 2000-3000 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnyG2bliKCs The lower frequency antennas have an even greater range, well over a mile. Only a very small amount of energy is required to have a strong signal, roughly 0.02 microwatts per square meter. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/press.html It is therefore well within the City’s legal authority to impose a 1,500 foot setback between antennas and residences, as such a requirement would not prohibit provision of wireless service.

The other limitation, regarding “environmental effects of RF emissions,” is the most commonly used tool of the wireless industry to bully local governments into thinking they cannot consider health or safety when regulating cell antennas. This is simply not true. For one, human health and safety are not the same thing as “environmental effects.” We live in the environment, we are not the environment. This is most clearly evidenced by a recent California Supreme Court ruling that will be covered shortly. Secondly, environmental effects, even if taken to include human health, need not form the basis of the regulations that keep cell antennas away from homes. Prevention of any of the above listed problems could form the basis of the imposed regulation.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the City has the legal authority to regulate the operation of the antenna on any basis. This is most clearly evidenced by the 1995/1996 US Senate/House Conference Committee that declined to allow the TCA’s passage, until the term “OPERATIONS” was left positively in the regulatory hands of state and local governments and only excluded the consideration of “environmental effects” from decisions about three activities: the placement, construction or modification of [personal wireless] facilities. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/legislation/1996-telecommunications-act-conference-report/ The City clearly has the authority to regulate the operation of the antennas and this authority could be used to restrict emissions from antennas the lowest amount necessary to provide wireless service.

2. California Public Utilities Code, section 7901

California Public Utilities Code, section 7901 states that:

“Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters.”

This key phrase is very important to California Cities’ authority to regulate cell antennas, as it gives you the authority to regulate antennas that would incommode the public use of the road. What does that mean specifically? That is best answered in the next section.

3. T-Mobile West v. City and County of San Francisco, California Supreme Court Case No. S238001, April 4, 2019

This recent California Supreme court ruling is the most clear example of California cities’ authority to regulate cell antennas. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019-ca-supreme-court-decision-t-mobile-v-san-francisco/ The decision affirms the authority and policing powers of local governments per the California Constitution to regulate utilities. This important decision goes beyond aesthetics as a local regulatory issue. The decision includes a discussion of what it means to “incommode” in Public Utilities Code Section 7901. “Incommode” is a critical word regarding use and access of the public rights-of-way (PROW), and cell antenna installations in the PROW.

Specifically the decision affirms inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction’s borders.” The decision also states that telecommunication companies are limited by the prohibition against incommoding the public use of roads, and that local governments have authority to prevent those impacts.” Finally the decision spells out what it means to incommode the public use of roads stating “But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might

  • generate noise,
  • cause negative health consequences, or
  • create safety concerns.

All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.”

This decision very clearly defines the City’s authority to regulate cell antennas to prevent negative health consequences and safety concerns. Negative health consequences and safety concerns are two of the primary problems being caused in Sacramento right now as direct result of the 5G antenna network. The City has clear authority, and, in fact, a duty, to enact regulations that will prevent these problems, or any other problems caused by cell antennas that would disturb the quiet enjoyment public roads, and arguably private property.

4. FCC Orders 18-133, 18-111, 18-30

The City of Sacramento is likely aware of the recent FCC orders aimed at stripping local authority to regulate cell antennas and facilitate the ease of 5G deployment. The City should also be aware that these orders have been and are currently being challenged in court. Challengers to these orders have pointed out that these FCC orders far exceed the legal authority of the FCC and attempt to rewrite or circumvent existing federal law. This is best evidenced by the fact that the FCC is 0-4 in recent court battles. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/law-suits-v-fcc-proceedings/ and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/ny-and-natoa-v-fcc/ The City would be wise not to permit hundreds or thousands of antennas based on FCC orders that have already been or likely soon will be vacated.

E. The Difference Between “4G” (lower frequency) and “5G” (millimeter wave) Small Cell Antennas

As you probably understand by now, there are two types of small cells currently being installed in the City of Sacramento. The primary difference is the broadcast frequency of the antennas. The lower frequency antennas operate at roughly 2000Mhz frequency, while the higher frequency antennas operate around 28Ghz. The city has opted to call the low frequency antennas 4G antennas and the higher frequency antennas 5G antennas, and we will use this same terminology for the sake of convenience. Both types of antennas are necessary for 5G to work, as the 4G antennas feed the signal to the 5G antennas which relay the signal to 5G devices. This is explained in this short video from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEx_d0SjvS0

5G small cell antennas have a significantly shorter range than 4G small cells and, as a result, will need to be closer to users. According to a Verizon product demonstration video titled “The Power of Millimeter Wave,” Verizon’s 5G millimeter wave antennas work very well at ranges of 2000-3000 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnyG2bliKCs Because the 4G small cell antennas use a lower frequency that travels further and penetrates objects more effectively, and because they have significantly more effective radiated power, 4G small cells have a much greater range of operation.

Collectively, all of this information means that the 4G small cells will expose nearby residents to much, much higher levels of radiation inside their homes compared to 5G small cells. This was explained by Dr. Jerrold Bushberg at the September 3rd Sacramento City Council meeting. https://youtu.be/bneKxpr36zM?t=980 The 5G antennas are also much smaller than the 4G antennas and therefore cause less clutter and visual blight on our city streets. https://imgur.com/sfkXUgQ

In light of these facts, it is our recommendation that the City of Sacramento create larger setbacks for 4G small cell antennas compared to the 5G small cell antennas. This will most effectively limit unnecessarily high microwave radiation exposure and reduce blight without materially inhibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

F. Specific Recommendations To The City of Sacramento For Amending The Current Cell Antenna Code

As has already been stated, the most effective way to solve the problems caused by the small cell antennas is to keep them away from residences and residential areas. Any action taken by the City that does not keep these antennas away from our homes will be considered a failure by the City to protect our rights and uphold your sworn oaths of office. Our recommendations in order of preference are:

1. Require a minimum setback of 1,500 feet between any cell antenna and the nearest home for antennas operating at 6GHz or less. Require a minimum setback of 1,000 feet between any cell antenna and the nearest home for antennas operating above 6GHz.

a. Reasoning – This is most simple and most effective way to deal with the problems posed by cell antennas. It also does not “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,” as the range of the antennas being deployed is significantly greater than the proposed setback distances.

a. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Petaluma Ordinance No. 2662 N. C. S., section 14. 44. 095 (pg. 5-6) http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Petaluma-Ordinance-2662-N.C.S.-09_10_2018.pdf

ii. City of Calabasas, CA. Ordinance No. 2012-295, section 17.12.050 (C)(4) https://library.municode.com/ca/city_of_calabasas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17LAUSDE_ARTIIZODIALLAUS_CH17.12STSPLAUS_17.12.050ANPEWITEFA

iii. Suisin City, California. Ordinance No. 757, section 12.28.080 (A) https://www.suisun.com/wp-content/files/Summary_757___Small_Wireless_Facilities_Urgency_Ordinance_Website_Full_Texrt_with_Exhibit_2019_04_02.pdf

2. Prohibit placement of cell antennas in residential areas

a. Reasoning – This is another fairly simple and effective way to deal with the problems posed by the 5G antenna network. However there can be potential complications when considering mixed use zones or non-residential zones adjacent to residential zones. The best way to deal with this is to also require a minimum setback between cell antennas and residences in addition to the restriction of placement in residential areas.

b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Petaluma Ordinance No. 2662 N. C. S., section 14. 44. 095 (pg. 5-6) http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Petaluma-Ordinance-2662-N.C.S.-09_10_2018.pdf

ii. City of Mill Valley, CA. Ordinance No. 1304 , section 20.73.040 (pg. 11) http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mill-Valley-Signed-Ord_1304.pdf

iii. City of Sonoma, CA. Ordinance 07-2018, section 5.30.040 (A) (pg. 13) https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/12036?preview=23609

3. Prohibit cell antennas immediately adjacent to, or across the street from, a front yard of any residential dwelling.

a. Reasoning – This has the effect of limiting cell antenna placement to significantly fewer locations, and thus preventing most Sacramento residents from the extremely high levels of microwave radiation exposure caused by having a cell antenna immediately adjacent to your home. However, this policy is very unfair to individuals living near the locations where cell antennas would be permitted. This would likely cause exaggerated negative financial impacts for homes near the locations where antennas would be permitted. For these reasons, options 1 and 2 are both vastly preferred to this policy.

            b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Elk Grove, CA.  Ordinance No. 19-2019, section 23.94.050 (6)(b) (pg. 13) http://www.elkgrovecity.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_109585/File/City%20Government/City%20Council/Ordinances/2019/09-11-19_8.5_19-2019.pdf

G. Further recommendations should the City choose not to adopt any of the policies from section F.

Refusal to adopt a policy from section F will be seen as a failure of the City to protect Sacramento residents from the problems caused by the 5G antenna network and a failure to uphold your sworn oaths of office. Should the City stubbornly continue to install these antennas near homes, these are our recommendations for attempting to mitigate some of the damages. We would consider these recommendations largely unnecessary should the city choose to adopt a policy from section F, particularly options 1 or 2.

1. Require that all cell antennas require a conditional use permit.

a. Reasoning – This will allow the City to exercise more control over the placement and operation of cell antennas, as well as impose additional safety/accountability requirements, such as independent testing, etc. This also allows Sacramento residents an opportunity to participate in the permitting process, which is highly favorable to the stealth deployment that has been happening in Sacramento for the past year.

b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Fairfax, CA. Ordinance No. 819, section 20.04.040 (pg. 12) https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/uploads/2018/10/Ord-819-URGENCYsmall-cell.pdf

ii. City of Sonoma, CA. Ordinance 07-2018, section 5.30.050 (A) (pg. 14) https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/12036?preview=23609

2.Set configuration and location preferences for cell antenna placement, with any location within 500 feet of a residential dwelling being the least preferred location. If an applicant wishes to install an antenna in a less preferred location, require the applicant prove that the antenna is necessary to close a significant gap in coverage, and that the proposed location is the least intrusive means of closing said gap.

a. Reasoning – Adopting preferential locations and configurations is one of the most common actions taken by cities that have recently amended their wireless telecommunications ordinances, and must be seen as legally defensible by many city attorneys. This is a way to require telecoms to install their antennas away from homes whenever possible. We would encourage the City to adopt stringent standards for permitting any cell antennas in less preferable locations i.e. require an in depth analysis and explanation from the applicant.

b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Ordinance No. 621, section 12.18.080 (2) https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho_palos_verdes/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.18WITEFAPURI-W_12.18.010PU

ii. City of Sebastopol, CA. Ordinance No.1123, section 17.130.155 (pg. 33) https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/4371a3fe-b28f-4e19-a4b2-bedd0073ab92/Ordinance-Number-11-23-TELECOMMUNICATIONS-FACILITIES-AND-MINOR-ANTENNAS-Appvd-5-7-2019.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf

iii. City of Mill Valley, CA. Ordinance No. 1304, section 20.73.060 (pg. 13-14) http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mill-Valley-Signed-Ord_1304.pdf

3. Require a minimum setback of 1,500 feet between all cell antennas, regardless of carrier.

a. Reasoning – This is an effective way to ensure Sacramento’s streets do not become cluttered with ugly, dangerous, and generally problematic cell antennas. It also effectively deals with colocation issues. This is another fairly common action taken by cities that have recently amended their wireless telecommunications ordinances. “Minimum Spacing Requirements” are even covered in FCC Order 18-133 and considered legally defensible.

b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

i. City of Sonoma, CA. Ordinance 07-2018, section 5.30.080 (F)(3) (pg. 24) https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/12036?preview=23609

ii. City of Fairfax, CA. Ordinance No. 819, section 20.04.090 (F)(6) (pg.22) https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/uploads/2018/10/Ord-819-URGENCYsmall-cell.pdf

iii. City of Petaluma Ordinance No. 2662 N. C. S., section 14. 44. 095 (pg. 5-6) http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Petaluma-Ordinance-2662-N.C.S.-09_10_2018.pdf

4. Require all antennas be directional, panel antennas (no omni-directional antennas) and require the antennas be pointed away from the nearest home.

a. Reasoning – This will prevent the situations that have the potential for the highest exposures, such as the situation at Noah’s sister’s home, where the antenna is pointed at and emitting directly the children’s window. It will also prevent the legally dubious situation of emissions exceeding FCC safety limits on private property. This action falls squarely under the city’s authority to regulate the operations of cell antennas, as you would only be regulating one parameter of the antenna’s function. 

            b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code – None

5. Reduce the maximum power output of small cell antennas such that ground level exposure from any small cell would not exceed 150 microwatts per square meter at any distance from the antenna.

a. Reasoning – Reducing the power output of the antennas would be a highly effective way to reduce exposure for Sacramento residents. 0.02 microwatts per square meter is all that required to make calls and send texts with very good signal strength. http://www.mystreetmychoice.com/press.html This policy would also fall squarely under the City’s authority to regulate the operation of the cell antennas in the most literal sense. However, implementing this policy would also require some way of policing the telecoms to ensure that their antennas are not emitting above the allowed limit. A hired independent expert to routinely monitor the cell sites or an automatic sensor and kill switch to turn off any antenna that exceeds the allowable emissions would be viable solutions to the policing issue.  

b. Other cities that have recently passed similar code – None, but San Francisco is currently looking into implementing a similar policy.

6. Public right to know – If the City of Sacramento is going to continue to install antennas near residences, all residents have the right to know all of the risks associated with the technology being forced upon us by the City. If the City truly believes this technology is absolutely safe and beneficial to the public, the City should want to inform the public about its implementation. And yet, up to this point the City has taken the complete opposite approach, keeping the 5G roll out as hushed as possible. Most residents still have no idea what 5G is or that it will be bringing thousands of new cell antennas to the City. This is unacceptable. The City has a duty to inform its residents about all of the problems posed by 5G. Our recommendations to inform the public include:

a. The City of Sacramento shall update their 5G webpage to include information submitted to the public record selected by Noah Davidson and his group. This is something that we have already been promised by council that the City has not followed through with.

b. The City of Sacramento shall submit an article to the Sacramento Bee for publication that informs the public about 5G implementation in Sacramento, including all of the problems outlined in section B of this document, and directing readers to the City’s 5G webpage.

c. All residents and property owners within a 1,500 foot radius of any proposed antenna should be informed via mail, by the City within 3 days of the carrier applying for the permit and again 30 days prior to installation. This correspondence should also inform the residents of the risks associated with exposure from the antenna and direct them to the City of Sacramento’s 5G safety website.

d. All cell antennas shall require warning labels at eye level, visible from all directions, informing passersby that they are near an antenna and exposure to cell antenna electromagnetic radiation may result in harm.

ii. Other cities that have recently passed similar code

– City of Sonoma, CA. Ordinance 07-2018, section 5.30.055 (pg. 18) https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/12036?preview=23609

– City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Ordinance No. 621, section 12.18.060 https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho_palos_verdes/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.18WITEFAPURI-W_12.18.010PU

%d bloggers like this: