City Hall and Cell Towers
Cities and counties are receiving more applications for small cell tower permits on city utility poles and churches as industry is pushing to expand its small cell distributed antenna system (DAS) for 4G, 5G and the Internet of Things. Local governments are responding by reviewing their wireless siting procedures and amending or rewriting ordinances and codes in order to maintain some measure of control in the placement of cell towers in addition to maintaining equitable revenue from cell tower installations. While cities still have limited protected zoning authority, federal laws are being proposed that broadly preempt local control. S19 The Mobile Act Now. Here are Verizon’s 2017 comments regarding Federal streamlining of wireless expansion.
Tools Cities Can Use to Preserve Wireless Facilities Control
- Cell Tower Zoning and Placement: Navigating Recent FCC Changes 2015. Legal Rights. Cell Tower Zoning: Navigating Recent FCC Changes, National Business Institute Teleconference
- 10 Key Issues for California Cities. Omar Masry. Medium. 10 Key Issues for California Cities and Counties on the Challenges of Small Cells
- League of Cities Legal Perspective on Telecommunications Law Wireless Antenna Update: Distributed Antenna Systems State and Federal Mandatory Collocation; New Regulatory and Legal Challenges
- Wireless in the Rights of Way and on Private Property. BBK.Law June 2017 Presentation. Wireless in the Rights of Public Way
- Local Authority Over Wireless Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. April 2018.
BBK Legal Letter April 24, 2018
- Cell Towers-Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? (2000) Blake Levitt. She notes that Diane Feinstein did attempt to revise the 1996 Telecommunications Act
- Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. (2010) Page 374- Biological Effects at Low intensity) Blake Levitt, Henry Lai. Environmental Reviews, 2010, 18(NA): 369-395. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/A10-018#.WYUlOHeZNo4
Co-location: One Cell Tower Antenna on a Utility Pole Becomes Many
A major problem is that once a cell tower is placed on a public utility pole or other structure it becomes, according to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, an “eligible facility’ structure and other antenna equipment can be added if it does not create a “substantial change”. This is a vague term and cities hesitate to deny collocation of antennas due to threat of lawsuit. In addition, other carriers can request to have their antennas on each pole and plea “discrimination” if their antenna are denied.
New City Rules: Stronger for Citizens or For Industry?
Although a few cities have proposed municipal code changes to streamline the process and make it easier for industry to place the cell towers, others such as Palos Verdes have chosen to strengthen theirs for increased public input. See Palos Verdes, California Wireless Technology Facilities Ordinance June 2017. Hempstead, Long Island has also led the way for other municipalities to regulate cell antenna and wireless telecommunications equipment in their city ordinance. Although it was not able to have specific setbacks from schools or homes, the law asks for significant proof from cellular service providers to establish the need for new cell towers (significant gap in coverage) and also ensures that approved wireless communications equipment is located in areas that minimize negative impacts on local communities by mandating a special use permit in residential neighborhoods (section 142.6).
States Approve Small Cell Streamlining. Unfortunately, 13 states have passed laws in 2017 that now allow for streamlining placement of “small cell” antenna throughout cities on public utility poles by removing local control, oversight and the amount a city can charge the telecommunications company to rent the public utility poles. 13 States Pass Fast Tracking of Small Cell Antenna. California’s Governor Brown vetoed such an effort (SB649) in 2018 leaving the telecommunications industry to individually request permits for cell tower placement in local jurisdictions
Denying Applications: Significant Gap in Coverage Required
An issue of importance to be able to deny cell towers is a significant gap in coverage. Local governments may not regulate wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects, may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services as per Section 332(c)(7) They can however deny applications in writing on the basis of traditional zoning principles, such as aesthetic impact or specific city zoning requirements in business districts and residential districts. Local municipalities may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services with a general ban but can deny cell antenna on the basis of “substantial evidence” that there is “No Significant Gap in Coverage” and if there is then the proposal must include the “Least Intrusive Means” of filling this gap. Page 11-12 of Navigating Cell Tower Zoning
Gap in coverage?
Verizon states they cover 322 million and 98% of the population and over 2.4 million square miles. How many registered cell towers are near you? You can go to antenna Search.com Antenna Search to find out how many cell towers are registered in a radius of 4 miles from you.
Lack of Transparency, Monitoring or Consideration of Environmental or Health Concerns
Cell tower placement still suffers from a continued lack of transparency in terms of monitoring, power densities or frequencies allowed. There is also growing awareness of the potential long term health effects from close proximity to cell tower radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits discussion of environmental concerns and some interpret this to mean health concerns as well in the placement of cell towers. This is despite growing awareness and scientific confirmation of the potential health effects from exposure to cell tower radiation and all radiofrequency wireless devices. Cities and citizens are questioning this provision by giving “substantial evidence” of health harm but judges can vary in their interpretation. According to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 environmental but not health impacts are mentioned, thus by law should be able to be discussed and argued as a reason to deny a cell tower.
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
`(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY-
“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.” 1996 Telecommunications Act
There is Current and Historical “Substantial Evidence” of Health Harm from Wireless Radiation
The results of the recent NTP study on cell phones and cancer, the Ramazinni Institute study on long term exposure to low level microwave radiation and Dr. Li’s prospective study at Kaiser on increased miscarriage with exposure to electromagnetic fields greatly strengthens the case for “substantial evidence” of harm. This adds to the growing body of science on broad adverse health and environmental effects from non thermal levels of radiation from wireless devices as well as cell towers. Blake Levitt’s article is a good read on the subject. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. (2010) Levitt Article . The Bioinitiative Report has been updated and has an abundance of scientific research on RF EMR which has been summarized and is easy to understand.
Invisible Hazards: State of the Science
More evidence of harm from wireless radiation comes from a May 9, 2018 CHE Webinar was sponsored by the Collaborative for Health and the Environment-Invisible Hazards: State of the Science on EMF Impacts and Steps for Policy Change. This featured Dr. Frank Barnes, Distinguished Professor in the Biomedical Group of the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering at the University of Colorado, Dr. De-Kun Li, Senior Research Scientist at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist and Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley
Firefighters Oppose Cell Towers on Grounds of Health Effects
If there are no health effects why do firefighters get a health exemption under law? Health symptoms in those living near cell towers have been reported for years. In 2004 The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) passed a resolution approved by over 80% of firefighters calling for a moratorium on placing cell towers on or adjacent to fire stations. They did this in response to a number of reports of headaches, dizziness, inability to concentrate, insomnia and other neurologic symptoms in their own firefighters when first responder cell towers were erected on their fire stations. They conducted their own pilot study in 2004 and found the firefighters studied had delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and difficulty in maintaining mental focus. The brain scans confirmed this and also controlled for other toxic exposures from fires. Letters in opposition to fire stations have been written by Union Leaders.
Firefighter Station Have Been Given Legal Exemptions for Cell Towers
AB57- Firefighters have gotten an exemption to have cell towers on or adjacent to their facilites.This was codified in California’s 2015 legislation AB57 . CA AB57 (2015) Legiscan Text of Bill. ” Section 65964.1. (f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless
telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities. “
SB649- They also received an exemption in California’s SB649 (2018), a bill which was vetoed by Governor Brown. SB 649 California (2017) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities – 65964.2. “(a) A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements: ….(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.”
The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Policy includes the following:
WHEREAS, the brain is the first organ to be affected by RF radiation and symptoms manifest in a multitude of neurological conditions including migraine headaches, extreme fatigue, disorientation, slowed reaction time, vertigo, vital memory loss and attention deficit amidst life threatening emergencies; and
WHEREAS, most of the firefighters who are experiencing symptoms can attribute the onset to the first week(s) these towers/antennas were activated; and
WHEREAS, RF radiation is emitted by these cellular antennas and RF radiation can penetrate every living cell, including plants, animals and humans;
For the safety of the citizens whom they are responsible to protect the firefighters are asking for state exemptions from cell tower placement on their facilities. In California, SB649 (2018 ), that was to streamline placement of cell towers on utility poles, the firefighters asked for and received a health exemption. The proposed SB649 Section 65964.2 reads “(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649. The bill passed both the California House and the Senate but was vetoed by Governor Brown.
Industry Challenges Cities
Verizon and other Cell phone companies have challenged cities who deny applications based on health or public safety, stating they have to supply substantial evidence.
- CBS Consumer Watch: 5G Cell Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts on Health. January 2018
- Town of Union will go to court over cell phone tower.January 4, 2018
- Verizon Sues Wisconsin City Over denied Cell Tower Application. August 2016.
- A Pushback on Cell Towers. New York Times. 2010 A Pushback Against Cell Tower lists a variety of reasons including 4-10% lowering of property values.
- Verizon Defends Cell Phone Tower Lawsuit March 2016 . In Almena Township, Michigan city council members voted to deny cell towers and then was challenged by Verizon with a lawsuit and backed down, approving them all.
However, a European Parliamentary Resolution states that wireless radiation emissions should abide by the “as low as reasonable able” policy set forth in the 2011 European Parliament Resolution 1815: The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. European Parliament 2011 Resolution 1815 For scientific information on cell tower health effects visit PST Cell Tower Health Effects
My Street My Choice
A Neighborhood Survival Guide
A new website has surfaced that has information on how to fight cell towers in your neighborhood. It is based in California. A Neighborhood Survial Guide: My Street My Choice http://mystreetmychoice.com My Street My Choice
Citizens Fight Back and Oppose Cell Towers
Attorney Patrick Shannon testifying against a 16 tower planned installation in Hillsborough, California
Patrick Shannon, an attorney who lives in Hillsborough, challenges the Hillsborough City Council who approved a cell tower cluster in residential neighborhoods in January 2017 without providing notice to the Hillsborough Wireless Committee, a city watchdog group.
December 22, 2017, residents in Hillsborough, a wealthy San Francisco suburb, successfully fought a 16 cell tower installation in their residential neighborhoods on the grounds of improper public notice, no community meetings and no environmental review. Although the telecom company is expected to return with another proposal this was a thoughtful and researched approach to addressing cell towers in residential neighborhoods. Attorney Patrick Shannon who has lead the fight in Hillsborough, California highlights the need for reform in city governments to ensure proper review of cell towers. Hillsborough Homeowners Push Back Against Cell Towers
Mr. Shannon argues that cell towers should not be allowed as they:
- Reduce property values, thus life savings for residents
- Installing massive cell towers near homes and schools violates Hillsborough laws, rural character, local values, aesthetics, public right of way under state law and least intrusive means under federal law.
- Does not preserve rural character of the town
- Violates location standards as according to Hillsborough city code the highest preference for placement is on public property and the lowest is in the public right of way.
- Is not the “least intrusive means” to close any alleged significant gap in coverage which is to colocate antennas on existing macro towers.
- Violates the municipal code to have under grounding rules. New development needs to be underground
- Violates design standards
- Violates height limit
- Violates camouflage code
- Inconsistent with setback rule that prohibits placement of any structure higher than 8 feet within 40 feet of a residence without homeowners approval
- Federal law allows unilateral extension of towers by 10 feet.
- This then sets a precedent for all other 26 national carriers to install the same number of towers and co-locate antennas.
Appealing Cell Tower Sites
Palo Alto, California:
Citizens have become more aware of how to file and appeal cell towers. One has to look at the city application or call city hall to find out where to file an appeal. In Palo Alto, a plan to install 92 Antennas in 10 neighborhoods has been appealed. Palo Alto: Residents oppose Verizon’s plan to add 92 cell antennas in neighborhoods.
Unfortunately the Appeals by 7 parties were denied by the Palo Alto City Council May 22, 2018. The Council discussed the under grounding of equipment and aesthetics but not the need for Verizon to prove a significant gap in coverage, least intrusive methods to bridge that gap, health, privacy or environmental effects. Cities are generally not prepared for the amount of information they need to read and comprehend in a the short amount of time the Spectrum Act Shot Clock gives them. Industry has made it clear that lawsuits will follow if the letter of the law is not followed. Verizon Wins Approval of Antenna Plan in Palo Alto
Appeal Letters to the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Cluster One Appeals
- Appeal — Ap-18-2: Herc Kwan, 2490 Louis Rd. (27 pages)
- Appeal — Ap-18-3: Francesca Kautz, 3324 South Court (8 pages)
- Appeal — AP-18-4: Christopher Lynn, 2802 Louis Rd. (5 pages)
- Appeal — AP-18-5: Jeanne Fleming, 2070 Webster St. (20 pages)
- Appeal — AP-18-6: RK Partharathy, 3409 Kenneth Dr. (12 pages)
- Appeal — AP-18-7: Russell Targ, 1010 Harriett St. (46 pages)
- Appeal — AP-18-8: Amrutha Kattamuri, 3189 Berryessa St. (126 pages)
No Significant Gap in Coverage
No significant gap in coverage could be found in any location where cell antenna were proposed in Palo Alto. This demonstrates a lack of need for the cell towers.
No Significant Gap in Coverage- Cluster One
Palo Alto, California: Proposed Cluster 1 cell towers: A “significant gap in coverage” is a stated reason to place cell towers however citizens are doing their own homework and showing substantial evidence of no significant gap in coverage using cellphones for that carrier listed at the locations targeted for cell towers.
No Significant Gap in Coverage- Cluster Two
Palo Alto, California: Proposed Cluster 2 cell towers: Substantial evidence of no significant gap in coverage. 5 bars on the phone seen at each location.
- While significant gap in coverage is preempted by federal law, Increasing capacity is not preempted by federal law and is the choice of cities and counties.
City of Palo Alto: 100 New Small Cell Antennas Proposed 2017: Federal laws referenced
Here is an Architectural Review Board staff review September 21, 2017 for the permit request for 100 new small cell applications for the City of Palo Alto. Palo alto opposed California’s SB649 to “streamline” applications for small cells which would remove local authority for cell tower placement. Unfortunately, a California law sets the rates utilities can charge for municipally owned utilities. Palo Alto is a Publicly Owned Utility.
Many cities in California are now actively fighting cell towers in residential and business areas- Hillsborough, Monterey and Nevada City to mention a few. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Small Cell antenna 2017
Here is Palo Alto Ordinance 5340 on Wireless Communications Facilities Updated in 2015. Palo Alto City Code 18.42.110 Pertaining to the Siting and Permitting of Wireless Communications Facilities. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49419
City of Palo Alto Ordinance Office of the Attorney clarifying Spectrum Act definitions. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47046
Court Hearings in the Appeal of Cell Towers
Cell Tower Appeal Upheld in Pennsylvania: T-Mobile vs Richard W.Shoemaker
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: Richard W. Schomaker vs ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN PARK and T-Mobile. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1524870.html. Here the Judge favored the citizen’s right to maintain the legal ordinance setback for a tall cell tower. In this 2010 appeal regarding placement of a cell tower on private property, the judge reversed a prior ruling allowing the Zoning Board Hearing to permit a variance of the city ordinance for T-Mobile. The Borough of Frankin Park, Pennsylvania has an ordinance requiring a 200 foot setback of cell towers to adjacent property. As stated, this ordinance and not the variance was ultimately upheld in court.
Cell Tower Lawsuit Reversed in Palos Verdes, California
Here is a 2009 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on a lawsuit filed by Sprint vs City of Palos Verdes Estates after Palos Verdes denied a permit in a residential neighborhood. The court reversed the decision by the lower court and ruled in favor of Palos Verdes. Palos Verdes vs Sprint 2009
Ordinance on Cell Towers Palos Verdes
Here is the ordinance in Palo Verdes, California which has some specific provisions for placement of cell towers such as in residential areas, on new poles, or where their would be impairment of view. Palos Verdes Wireless Technology Facilities Ordinance June 2017
Austin and Dozens of Other Cities Sue Texas Over Law Streamlining Cell Towers
Texas passed a cell tower streamlining law in 2017 for widespread placement of small cell antenna on city utility poles, however, the City of Austin had concerns about the loss of millions of dollars of annual revenue, in addition to a loss of local control. Austin has sued the state of Texas. Bennett Sandlin, Executive Director for the Texas Municipal League stated stated “The problem is, the Texas constitution doesn’t allow rights of way to be given away. You have to compensate the taxpayers.”
As of November 2017 three dozen cities have sued the state of Texas over SB 1004, the cell tower fee-cap bill. It is argued that the bill does not compensate cities fairly and that the rental per pole should be more like $1500-$2500. Cities Sue Over Cellular Right-of-Way Cap Fees Athens Daily Review. Nov 16, 2017.
Arguing Health Concerns
If a city or county does not wish to allow cell antenna placement they can argue aesthetics or gap coverage but it is commonly thought that there is no ability to argue health or environmental effects as a reason to reject a cell tower (Telecommunications Act of 1996). Some argue that environmental concerns not health concerns are the problem. In San Diego City planners in 2015 opposed the cell towers in residential neighborhoods not on health grounds. They denied these, stating “Cooper made a motion to deny the cell tower for reasons that included it is a commercial, industrial application in a residential area, is along a scenic highway, exceeds the county height limit and has potential to decrease property values.”
Timely Fashion Ruling for Cities to Deny Cell Tower Applications
In Georgia a Supreme Court Ruling in 2015 highlighted the need for cities to provide in a timely explanation for denial. Supreme Court Tells Cities to Explain a Cell Tower Denial in Timely Fashion.
Repeal of Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?
Federal bills are being introduced to remove local authority Streamlining Small Cell Permits. Cities and counties can craft their own ordinances now to give more power and flexibility to local governments for cell tower siting. Legal assistance is important to assure there is no violation of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Many feel section 704 needs to be repealed because it prevents discussion or consideration of health or environmental effects as a reason to deny antenna placement.
Arguing Against Cell Tower Placement
Ordinances and Arguments to Deny Cell Towers
Ordinances and arguments cities and citizens have used as reasons to oppose cell towers include provisions about placement in residential or scenic areas. These include:
- Requirements for specific set backs from homes
- No commercial/ industrial application of towers in a residential zone
- Historic preservation considerations
- Placement along a scenic road
- Aesthetic requirements
- Excessive Noise Mini Cell Towers A Maxi Threat. Sept 2016
- Exceeds county height limit
- Least Intrusive method to achieve wireless coverage (Telecom Act 1996)
- Decrease in property values Greenwood Meadows NJ
- Monitoring requirements for radio frequency radiation levels
- Placement of cellular communication equipment that is only currently commercially available and specifically not for planned or future equipment
- Placement of accessory equipment underground
- Requirements and limits on power density radiation levels that can be broadcast from the equipment.
- Significant Gap in Coverage: On a Federal level significant gap needs to be shown to permit cell towers. Citizens can take their own measurements if done in a valid manner. See Santa Rosa Fights Cell Tower Placement.
- Use the”least intrusive means” to close any alleged significant gap in coverage, which is to co-locate antennas on existing macro towers.
Hempstead Town in Long Island- Setbacks from Homes, Schools
In Hempstead Town an ordinance was passed which states that no new cell towers or antennae shall be located closer than 1500 feet to a residential home, house of worship, day care center or school. Hempstead Town Wireless Facilities Ordinance
Bar Harbor, Maine- 1500 foot Setbacks from Schools
Residents in Bar Harbor Maine approved a change in zoning laws that increased the cell tower setback distance from 500 feet to 1500 foot from schools in 2008. Bar Harbor Maine School Setback for Cell Towers. Nov 2008.
Mason, Ohio- Small Cell Facilities Zoning Restrictions
In Mason, Ohio, Chapter 1188.8 Cellular or Wireless Communications Systems in their city code states that:
- Every attempt shall be made to mount a small cell facility to an existing structure,
- A small cell facility shall not be located within a residential zoning district, a residential subdivision, or within 100 feet of a property that contains a residential use.
- No small cell facilities may be located within 2,000 linear feet from another small cell facility or cellular or wireless communication tower, unless such facility is co-located as defined in this chapter.
- All related equipment, including, but not limited to, electrical boxes, conduit, wiring, and mounting equipment shall be placed underground or be wholly contained within an enclosure so as not to be visible. Further, all electrical and communications connections shall run underground to the facility.
- Small cell facilities shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height.
- Co-Location. Small cell facilities shall consist of not more than one small cell antenna per wireless communications user and shall be capable of providing the operation for two or more wireless communications service users.
- Footprint. Small cell facilities shall not exceed twenty-four (24) inches in diameter with the exception of the foundation, which said foundation shall not exceed six (6) inches above grade.
5G and Small Cell Information Fact Sheets for Printing
Environmental Health Trust has created information sheets on 5G and Small Cells that have valuable information and can be shared with policy makers, community leaders and others.
Cell Phone Towers Outside Your Window – Why You Don’t Have The Right To Fight
CBS news discussing a local fight in San Francisco in 2015 to prevent installation of a small cell tower in a neighborhood. A resident appealed the cell tower which would have been 10 feet from his window and won. This was only one of hundreds of permits that have been allowed.
Many Cities and Schools Now Fighting Cell Towers
Concord Regional School Committee rejects cell tower; debate continues in Concord Concord School Cell Tower Debate April 17, 2018
Danville Danville Residents Express Radiation Concerns Over Building of Small Cell Towers New rules are being proposed for Danville that “would exempt small cells from land use permit and the associated submittal requirements.” Danville Commission New Cell Tower Fast Tracking Permitting Rules Proposed
Hillsborough Hillsborough Residents fight Cell Towers
- My Street My Choice Monterey http://mystreetmychoice.com/monterey.html
- Street My Choice Napa http://mystreetmychoice.com/napa.html
Piedmont Cell Antenna Sites OK’d: No One’s Happy . Piedmont, an East Bay city, denied antennas for 5 of 8 cell antenna sites, stating that they were out of compliance with city standards, design guidelines, noise levels and the general plan. City of Piedmont, Council Meeting Oct 16, 2017. The city did approve some cell towers out of fear of being sued. Fear of Lawsuit Prompts Site ApprovalWith All Parties Unhappy.
Running Springs- Catholic Church and Retreat Center, Proliferation of Cell Towers Raises Concerns
- No Gap in coverage Sebastopol You Tube March 10, 2018
- My Street My Choice Sonoma http://mystreetmychoice.com/sonoma.html
Santa Rosa Citizens Fight Back at a City Council meeting January 30, 2018
Residents point out among other things, that there is no significant gap in coverage and showed a video near each proposed tower demonstrating full cell phone coverage. They argue more new cell towers are NOT needed. 5G is not yet developed and these will be 3G and 4G towers in residential areas adjacent to homes.
Federal Regulations Proposed
Below is a list of some of the regulations that come into play and important to understand. There are several new Federal laws proposed to fast track cell tower placement. Federal Streamlining Small Cell Antenna Laws 2017
The Telecommunciation Act of 1996.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act of 1996 has several clauses to consider. One prohibits any discussion of health or environmental harm in a public forum or for denial of a permit. It also discusses discrimination of carriers, the language of “significant gap in coverage” as a reason for approving a permit. Supplying written substantial evidence is important for cities who wish to deny a permit.Telecommunications Act 1996
The Spectrum Act of 2012
The Spectrum Act, is an added section of the Payroll Deduction Act and called the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
This Act facilitates the telecommunications industry’s rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure by requiring local governments to approve any application by a carrier that asks to modify and existing cellular communication structure that does not “substantially change” the existing facility. Section 6409 states cities ““may not deny, and shall approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” (47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1).) Section 6409 defines “eligible facilities request” as “any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves –
(a) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(b) removal of transmission equipment; or
(c) replacement of transmission equipment.”