The URL can be used to link to this page

Request to Reconsider-Southwestco Wireless, LLC Supplemental Leases Copyrighted October 15, 2018 City of Dubuque Action Items # 2. ITEM TITLE: Requestto Reconsider- Southwestco Wireless, LLC Lease Supplements (October 1, 2018) SUMMARY: Correspondence from Council Member Jake Rios requesting reconsideration of the October 1, 2018 Public Hearing item Intent to Dispose of an Interest in Real Property Owned by the City of Dubuque by Lease Supplements Between the City of Dubuque, lowa and Southwestco Wireless, Inc. D/B/A Verizon Wireless. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Council ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Rios - Requestto Reconsider E-Mail Supporting Documentation Citizen Correspondence and Related Articles Supporting Documentation Federal and State Preemption-MVM Memo Supporting Documentation Staff Memo on Federal and State Preemption Supporting Documentation Small Cell, 5G and Community Health Concerns-MVM Supporting Documentation Memo Staff Memo re Small Cell, 5G and Community Health Supporting Documentation Concerns Kevin Firnstahl From: Jake A. Rios Sent: Friday, October 12,2018 11:23 AM To: Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Reconsideration of item on agenda. Although I still stick with my agreement with Mr. Jones that the Sg Wireless issue was an issue for some that the sky is falling and that there is no substantial proof either way it would seem some politicians on council have kicked up enough fervor on the subject that I would like to have the item: Resolution No. 295-18 Disposing of an interest in real property owned by the City of Dubuque by Supplements between the City of Dubuque, lowa and Southwestco Wirless, Inc D/B/A Versizon Wireless, reconsidered. Per the "Rules & Procedure" in Title 1, Chapter 6, Article A, Section 1-6A-10, "Motions for Special Purposes" of the city council If I didn't do something correctly let me know. Thanks and take care, Jake 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:17 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: Our Wireless Tech Is Unsafe. FIVE US gov't agencies have tried to warn us. From:frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 7:40:07 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick;Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W.Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: Fwd: Our Wireless Tech Is Unsafe. FIVE US gov't agencies have tried to warn us. ---------- Forwarded message--------- Sorry.The talk time has expired. Substitute this: From: BG<thinkcivic@�mail.com> Date:Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:03 AM Subject: Our Wireless Tech Is Unsafe. FIVE US gov't agencies have tried to warn us. To: BG <thinkcivic@�mail.com> For 30 years the FCC has pretended that human exposure risks from wireless tech come solely from wireless radiation's heating of body tissue. ('If it isn't starting to cook you, it isn't hurting you.') THIS IS AN OUT-AND-OUT LIE. Big Telecom gets a pass by using this claim in order to proliferate endless consumer devices which, without raising your temperature, cause serious biological harm "'lIC"'IG�a��.iw��'� �°� ��'_iN��, which show biological harm from RF radiation are not even considered by the government agencies that are supposed to ensure safety." Warnings shown below go back a long way. But, as the linked Harvard ethics report says, the FCC has long been 'captured' by the telecom industry. The FCC iS tOtally COritr011eC� l�y corporate interests. (The Cellular Telecom lobbying group meets with the FCC "500 times a year".) SEE ESPECIALLY THE HARVARD ETHICS EBOOK REPORT. https://takebackyourpower.net/5-us-�overnment-a�encies-have-tried-to-warn-us-about-wireless- harm ,,,, ��Ill,�oui�r�� U�II��lll��R, iu��U�lll��iii�� from the Harvard Ethics Department clearly identifies that the FCC is a captured agency. This is the same with virtually all other western countries' agencies responsible for wireless and health. i At least 5 other agencies have tried to warn us 1. Environmental Protection A�ency (EPA), 1993: The FCCs exposure standards are "seriously flawed." (Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation, FCC Docket ET 93-62, November 9, 1993.) Environmental Protection A�ency (EPA), 2002: Norbert Hankin of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, wrote: "The FCC's current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non- thermal exposure situations.... The generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.... There are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur.... Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures." 2. Food and Dru� Administration (FDA), 1993: "FCC rules do not address the issue of long-term, chronic exposure to RF fields." (Comments of the FDA to the FCC, November 10, 1993.) 3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1994: The FCCs standard is inadequate because it "is based on only one dominant mechanism— adverse health effects caused by body heating." (Comments of NIOSH to the FCC, January 11, 1994.) 4. Amateur Radio Relay Lea�ue Bio-Effects Committee, 1994: "The FCC's standard does not protect against non-thermal effects." (Comments of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7, 1994.) 5. The U.S. Department of Interior, 2014: "Study results have documented [bird] nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death.... 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." z -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ��Sent from a hardwired computer--no wireless whatsoever-- for the sake of you,me,and the bees.�� D�� *�or ��. II��II��^��a� ��a:��o�ll�a��. BG thinkcivic@�mail.com �`T�k� ��k �'c�uar Pc�vv�r�', �id�c� ��il�bl� fr�� c�nlin� Click here to report this email as spam. 3 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:17 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: 5G From: Lindsey Mescher<Imescher@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 7:59:50 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones; dresnick@cityofdubuque; bshaw@cityofdubuque; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: 5G To Whom It May Concern, Please please do NOT bring 5G towers to dubuque! They are s0000 dangerous &cause cancer. It's one huge experiment that I do not want to be apart of. However if these towers are placed we have no option but to be apart of it. Please reconsider!!!!! Sincerely, Dr. Lindsey topping Sent from my iPhone Click https://www.mai Icontrol.com/sr/i H pLXeICZFDGX2PQPOmvUvS5rTYx7V31po9A76w5cm LH KsAqoErSvKH�LI+4UTJy22PsB YcHX5f3Y22mG05KhQ== to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:16 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: NO to Verizon 5G Smal) Cel) Transmitters From: Mary Loney Bichell <maryl@infowebsystems.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:26:47 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: NO to Verizon 5G Small Cell Transmitters Hi Everyone, I encourage you all to look for alternatives to Verizon's transmitter proposal. We need to look for options that do NOT increase our citizen's exposure to radiation, in fact,we SHOULD be trying to limit our exposure. Furthermore, as Dubuque County has a high incidence of cancer, a committee (made up of inedical and environmental professionals) should be appointed to investigate possible causes. Regards, Mary Loney Bichell 595 W. 11t" Street Dubuque, IA 52001 Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:16 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: Regarding 5G Small Cell transmitters in Dubuque Forwarding. From:Jim Earles<yogaspectrum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 3:09:04 PM To: Roy D. Buol Cc: Ric W.Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: Regarding 5G Small Cell transmitters in Dubuque Dear Council Members: My name is Jim Earles and I live in Dubuque. It has come to my attention that this evening's Council Meeting will include a public hearing on three new Verizon 5G Small Cell transmitter locations, proposed for Dubuque. While I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting, I would like to strenuously object to any sort of presence of 5G transmitters in Dubuque. 5G is an unnecessary technology which will add considerable strain to the health and well-being of Dubuque residents, as well as animals and the environment. There are major concerns about how this new technology will impact human health, privacy, property values and issues of local internet control. Technology providers may frame this as being nothing more than a technological update, but it has serious and possibly irreversible ramifications. Are you aware that there is an international effort of concerned scientists, doctors and environmental organizations, all working to stop the implementation of 5G technology? You may learn more at https://www.5�spaceappeal.or�/the-appeal/. I quote the following from the aforementioned appeal: "Telecommunications companies worldwide,with the support of governments, are poised within the next two years to roll out the fifth-generation wireless network(5G).This is set to deliver what is acknowledged to be unprecedented societal change on a global scale. We will have "smart" homes, "smart" businesses, "smart" highways, "smart" cities and self-driving cars. Virtually everything we own and buy, from refrigerators and washing machines to milk cartons, hairbrushes and infants' diapers,will contain antennas and microchips and will be connected wirelessly to the Internet. Every person on Earth will have instant access to super-high-speed, low- latency wireless communications from any point on the planet, even in rainforests, mid-ocean and the Antarctic. "What is not widely acknowledged is that this will also result in unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. The planned density of radio frequency transmitters is impossible to envisage. In addition to millions of new 5G base stations on Earth and 20,000 new satellites in space, 200 billion transmitting objects, according to estimates, will be part of the Internet of Things by 2020, and one trillion objects a few years later. Commercial 5G at lower frequencies and slower speeds was deployed in Qatar, Finland and Estonia in mid-2018.The rollout of 5G at extremely high (millimetre wave)frequencies is planned to begin at the end of 2018. "Despite widespread denial,the evidence that radio frequency(RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals, and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases of modern civilization—cancer, heart disease and diabetes—are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution,forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies. i "If the telecommunications industry's plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today,without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth's ecosystems. "Immediate measures must be taken to protect humanity and the environment, in accordance with ethical imperatives and international agreements." In conclusion, I would like to point out that Dubuque has done such a commendable job of formulating and implementing sustainability initiatives. While no city is perfect, we truly do have much to be proud of here! I hope that you will continue to make us proud by following the Precautionary Principle--in the absence of scientific consensus that an action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. Sincerely, Mr.Jim Earles 2811 Buena Vista St. Dubuque Click https://www.mai Icontrol.com/sr/Ouy23kqPoH3GX2PQPOmvUoZ6CX!kCKIT8GrfJAXCawYlTpfxZRw!141fkhp042Q2hKcOtpi bKctkxH4nYzTQYQ== to report this email as spam. 2 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:16 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: 5G vote Forwarding. From: Hannah Bildstein <hmzbornik@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 1:57:11 PM To: Luis Del Toro Subject: 5G vote Councilman Del Toro - I see that the second item under the Public Hearings on the agenda for tonight's City of Dubuque meeting involves leasing land to Verizon, which I am told is for 5G towers to be placed. I am not in support of these new towers. From the little bit I understand, there are major concerns about the safety of the 5G technology...on our health and the natural environment. There are other concerns about privacy, property values, and possible internet controls, but my main concern is that we, as a population, are becoming a science/medical experiment with some of these "advances,"for which we don't know the long term effects. Below are a few links that discuss these concerns: https://www.newsweek.com/miqratorv-birds-bee-naviqation-5q-technoloqv-electromaqnetic-radiation-934830 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5q-network-cell-towers-raise-health-concerns-for-some-residents/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/01/25/consumerwatch-5q-cellphone-towers-siqnal-renewed-concerns-over- impacts-on-health/ https://www.westonaprice.orq/health-topics/environmental-toxins/microwave-radiation-cominq-lamppost-near/ I implore you to not support the installation of this new technology, of which we have yet to know the long term results on our health and the environment. We are technically outside the city limits (south of Key West, in Southern Hills), but are near Digital Drive, which I understand is a proposed location for one tower. Thank you for your consideration, Hannah Bildstein Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:15 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: Please say NO to Verizon 5G Smal) Cel) Transmitters Forwarding. From: Cynthia Cechota <healthbyingestion@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 10:16:00 AM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: Re: Please say NO to Verizon 5G Small Cell Transmitters ps. For an objective perspective, please see this article: https://www.westonaprice.or�/health-topics/environmental-toxins/microwave-radiation-comin�-lamppost- near .�� '�� If�I�C� �� If�'�If C�I�h �C�IC"�If I�h�;. .�C� � (1((f�1%!� � ~ � °� ��ir°m��,�� ir X�� II�� mmm ��°. � Il�n ��n e:e�cc;e:e�a�iia��n��llll�^��na�� a�:e�iia�c� a�f �iimr�e:eo c;e:ellllull��e:e�;�n�na�lla��wiie:B1� ` -'' �n��ve:e ��:e�;a�mr�e:e �� c�a�mr�ii�n��n� fii�c�u�e:e a�f mr�a�c�e:e��.c�� Ilirfe:e. VV�ne:e�n ��ne:e fii�^��c;llu�n��.�c;e:ellll �a�na��ne:B1� ��:e�;��mr�e:e c;a�mr�mr�e:e�c;ii��llll��v��iill��lle:e ii�n ��ne:e [.a.� l/,/,-/"�lt `,91�Yi�.'i��Ylrr r�Y`r'a From: Cynthia Cechota Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:53 AM To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org; rjones@cityofdubuque.org; dresnick@cityofdubuque.org; bshaw@cityofdubuque.org; Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.org; kmlarson@cityofdubuque.org;jrios@cityofdubuque.org Subject: Please say NO to Verizon 5G Small Cell Transmitters Dear Council Members: Please do not allow Verizon or any other wireless technology company to expose Dubuque, including humans, pets, wildlife, and crops to the intense microwave radiation of this new technology. Send a message to all cellular companies that before they introduce a major health concern, they need to research ways to protect our health, and the health of our planet. Personally, I'd rather have slower data than cancer!!! And please consider Sustainable Dubuque in your decision, as well as the folks who live and work in the three areas this technology would be installed. i Thank you for listening. Cynthia Cechota 8 Lindberg Terrace Click here to report this email as spam. 2 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 10:15 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: 5G tower by Creston St near my home Forwarding email received. From: Bryan Blair<structupuncture0l@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:37:42 AM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: 5G tower by Creston St near my home Hello, I am writing to let you know of my opposition to placing SG towers in the neighborhood near our home on Creston St and in residential neighborhoods in generaL I live on Creston St and am very concerned about the plans to place the SG tower so close to my home. While I love technology (I have a Bachelors in Biomedical Engineering) and fast Internet speeds and wireless access, I do not believe we can ignore the bad effects of SG on our health and community. Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects including causing cancer as well as: • DNA single and double strand breaks • oxidative damage • disruption of cell metabolism • increased blood brain barrier permeability (this means many synthetic chemicals and natural toxins that normally cannot get into the brain will then be able to gain entry and cause damagei) • melatonin reduction (melatonin allows us to sleep well and is an important anti-inflammatory antioxidant that protects our brain and neurological system. It also protects against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and many other conditions) • disruption to brain glucose metabolism • generation of stress proteins There is additional science on SG technology which tells us that if we put this tower in my neighborhood, we can expect increases in diseases and medical conditions that affect: our skin (skin diseases and cancers) our eyes (cataracts) our hearts (arrhythmias) our immune systems i It is also scientifically linked to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This means that our immune systems will be weaker and the bacteria better able to survive our antibiotic treatments. Generally speaking, the closer you are to a SG tower, the more you will experience these detrimental affects. There are more vulnerable citizens who have medical conditions that make them more susceptible to the adverse effects of SG wireless technology. More and more people are having these issues so this problem will only get bigger. We need to deal with SG in a thoughtful manner to protect ALL citizens. I myself am EMF sensitive and I have two children who have growing brains that are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects known to occur from SG technology. There are several additional children living even closer to where this tower is planned to be placed. I recognize that there are limitations that the FCC has put in place. But please note that: l. The FCC is staffed by former members of the telecommunication industry and they are effectively indemnified against adverse health impacts when the "acceptable" limits of radiation are exceeded. 2. We need to take action and create policies that protect our citizens as much as is in our power to overcome this. We need to create a formal policy to limit and prohibit the installation of devices in residential neighborhoods. Just like we need to protect our citizens from lead in the water, we need to protect citizens from getting cancer and other health issues that science shows us result from SG technology. It will save money and lives to plan ahead and not wait until citizens are dying from this technology before we take action. The people most susceptible to these adverse health impacts are the youngest among us because their blood- brain barrier has not been fully developed yet. This is why all across America citizens are uniting to fight against this technology. Please be a leader for other communities and do what is right to protect our citizens. This technology isn't necessary. The risk benefit ratio of putting these close to people's homes tells us it is too dangerous. Please quickly scan these two links to see the growing list of communities taking action to protect their citizens. htt�://wifiinschools.com/u�loads/3/0/4/2/3042232/schools_and_organizations_wifi.�df htt�://www.�arentsforsafetechnology.org/worldwide-countries-talcing-action.html Thank you in advance for taking the time to learn about my concerns. Sincerely, Katie Blair 3895 Creston St. Dubuque, Iowa 52002 z Kevin Firnstahl From: Citizen Support Center <dubuqueia@mycusthelp.net> Sent: Monday, October Ol, 2018 8:06 PM To: Kevin Firnstah) Subject: "Contact Us" inquiry from City of Dubuque website Contact Us Name:Carol Simon Address: Ward: Phone: 5635998750 Email:cleeenlaundry@yahoo.com City Department:City Council Message: I am against the proliferation of 5G towers thru out Dubuque.The convenience is not worth the risk or questionable risk to the safety of the families living near these towers. Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Citizen Support Center <dubuqueia@mycusthelp.net> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 11:38 PM To: Kevin Firnstah) Subject: "Contact Us" inquiry from City of Dubuque website Contact Us Name:Carla kaufman Address: Ward: Phone: Email:Cjane319@yahoo.com City Department:City Council Message: I would like to voice my opposition to the 5 G small cell translators being installed. My mother lives in the middle of town, and has an Autoimmune disease.5G has been liked to lowering immune systems.The issue is that 5G towers could exacerbate health symptoms already suspected as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields.Those symptoms can include fatigue, headaches,sleep problems,anxiety, heart problems, learning and memory disorders,ringing in the ears and increased cancer risk, according to the EMF Safety Network. It's important to know that in 2011,the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors. Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including: DNA single and double-strand breaks(which leads to cancer) oxidative damage(which leads to tissue deterioration and premature aging) disruption of cell metabolism increased blood-brain barrier permeability melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)disruption of brain glucose metabolism generation of stress proteins(leading to myriad diseases)The new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands,which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners.The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing.Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum,with more transmitters located closer to people's homes and workplaces— basically a lot more(and more potent) RFR flying around us.This is a massive health experiment on the citizens.This needs to be stopped.The SF Bay area has has enacted an urgency ordinance to regulate"small cell"towers with the intent to do more work and studies to craft a permanent ordinance within the next year.The urgency ordinance has standards to limit and prohibit the installations of devices in residential neighborhoods.As a progressive city, I think Dubuque should follow that model. Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Ric W. Jones Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:49 AM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: FW: Cell Tower Did not appear to be copied to you. ic Jon�s �ity �ouncil IVl�mb�r �ity of ubu u�, lovv� 50 �st Thirt��nth Str��t ubu u�, lovv� 52001 5 3 55 3490 From: Brett Shaw Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:45 To: kerryelliott8<kerryelliott8@aol.com> Cc: Roy D. Buol <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.org>; Ric W.Jones<rjones@cityofdubuque.org>; David T. Resnick <dresnick@cityofdubuque.org>; ideltoro@cityofdubuque.org; Kate Larson <kmlarson@cityofdubuque.org>;Jake A. Rios <jrios@cityofdubuque.org> Subject: Re: Cell Tower Kerry, The council agenda is controlled solely by the Mayor and City Manager.This is to say that for a reversal on this decision to occur that either the Mayor or City Manager will need to direct that it be added for formal discussion. Only 1 more vote was required to stop this. It passed 4-3.The most likely swing vote of the 4 members who voted in favor is Jake Rios. I'd recommend calling him to discuss the matter. 1 option available to us would be for a council member to request reconsideration during the council notes section of the next council meeting.This won't gain traction if at least 4 members do not express support of this.This is where direct contact with Jake, Ric, Roy or David will be necessary. 1 of them will have to deviate from their current position. I will raise the request but need you and others to make a concerted push with the aforementioned council members in advance of this. Does this make sense? If need be we can talk over the phone. Thank you, Brett On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:06 PM, kerryelliott8<kerryelliott8@aol.com>wrote: 1 I am aware the vote was passed to place cell towers in my neighborhood. I am begging you to reconcider, not only for the reasons I mention in my previous email.Also for the fact not a single one of us were informed prior to the vote taking place. This to me is unfair and not politically correct!! I encourage your response to me and my fellow neighbors! Thank you, Kerry Elliott 3980 Creston St. Dubuque, IA 52002 S�int un� tlh�S�irnsuin��Il�xy S7,�in A f&f�� I..:fF sum�rtµ�lhcr�� --------Original message-------- From: kerryelliott8<kerryelliott8@aol.com> Date: 10/1/18 5:51 PM (GMT-06:00) To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�, riones@cityofdubuque.or�, dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�, bshaw@cityofdubuque.or�, ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�, irios@cityofdubuque.or� Subject: Cell Tower I am writing you in regards to the 5g cell tower placement near my home on Creston St. I am opposed to the placement of cell towers being placed in my neighborhood.The health risks that would be effected are not worth a tower being placed in a neighborhood like Creston and any other for that matter.The location of schools and parks near by would also have negative effects to our families and children. My fellow neighbor Katie Blair, had emailed you as well with more detail of the negative health risks caused by these towers. Please take our request into consideration when voting on this. Thank you, Kerry Elliott 3980 Creston St. Dubuque, IA. 52002 S�int un� tlh�S�irnsuin��Il�xy S7,�in A f&f�� I..:fF sum�rtµ�lhcr�� Click here to report this email as spam. 2 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 8:21 PM To: Jake A. Rios; Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstah) Subject: Fwd: 5G service is coming —and so are health concerns over the towers that support it - CBS News Sharing with you Mike and Kevin. Added you Jake as they had your email incorrect. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: David Burrows<dburrows@shaffer-burrows.com> Date: October 6, 2018 at 7:34:44 PM CDT To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�, riones@cityofdubuque.or�, dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�, bshaw@cityofdubuque.or�, Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�, irios@cityofdubuqe.or� Subject: 5G service is coming—and so are health concerns over the towers that support it-CBS News 5G service is coming - and so are health concerns over the towers that support it ��°w �9�°�r�r�� The wireless industry is in a race to roll out_!"�6M�_��. The network is supposed to be up to 100 times faster than current data speeds, but it requires cellphone tower equipment to be closer to users than before. Wireless companies in the U.S. say they'll have to install about 300,000 new antennas - roughly equal to the total number of cell towers built over the past three decades. That's causing outrage and alarm in some neighborhoods, as antennas go up around homes. � 'm� AT&T says it will try to use existing infrastructure, like street lights, to install the new antennae required for 5G service. CBS News At a lab in New York, Verizon invited CBS News' Tony Dokoupil to meet some of the entrepreneurs developing tools to run on the next generation of wireless technology. Jonathan Reeves, the CEO of Arvizio, said 5G service is extremely i important to his company's mission. His product allows users in different locations to interact with 3D images projected through a lens. "Today, we can do this using Wi-Fi technology, and we can do it using landline technology. But of course you're then tied to particular locations. With 5G, now we can begin to extend this. So we can actually begin to start doing this on building sites. We can start doing it on the factory floor. So it really opens up a whole new world," Reeves said. But before that world can become reality, this one needs to change. 5G requires the installation of new equipment across the U.S. Every wireless company is working to build its own 5G network. � 'm� Melissa Arnoldi, president of technology and operations for AT&T CBS News Melissa Arnoldi, who leads AT&T's efforts, said if it's not already in your neighborhood, it's coming. She said 5G uses high-frequency waves that support faster speeds but don't travel as far as current wireless frequencies. So instead of relying on large cellphone towers spread far apart, they need "small cell" sites that are much closer together. "We're going to use our existing infrastructure today. Whether it's light poles, whether it's street lights. So we're going to make sure that we don't make it obtrusive to our customers and to the citizens," Arnoldi said. Yet some don't share the enthusiasm. "The cell towers are called small cell towers, but they are not so small when they are in your front yard," said Donna Baron. She is protesting plans to convert light poles in her Montgomery County, Maryland, neighborhood into small cell sites. "This will cause cancer," Baron said. She was one of several people who raised health concerns about the radiation emitted by the equipment at a government hearing last month. Cell phone equipment does emit radiation but research on its health effects has been inconsistent. According to the National Cancer Institute, "A limited number of z studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks... but most studies have found no association." � 'm� CBS News If Baron loses the fight, she said she'll consider moving. Either way, she fears property values could plummet when 5G equipment pops up. "It could drop 20 percent," she said. "For that house, that house, that house. And then pretty soon you go around the curb and there's another cell tower. They're all through this neighborhood. So it's going to devastate the neighborhood." Arnoldi insists her workers are focused on safety, pointing out they live and work near this equipment, too. Although she doesn't have any 5G antennae in her neighborhood yet, she said it's coming soon and she's "absolutely" comfortable with that. Wireless carriers have announced plans to roll out 5G service to a handful of cities later this year. But to really take advantage, you'll need a 5G-enabled device, which probably won't be available until next year. Sent from my iPad Click here to report this email as spam. 3 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 8:22 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl; Jake A. Rios Subject: Fwd: Why 5G cell towers could affect your health ( Komando.com Same as the last email. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: David Burrows<dburrows@shaffer-burrows.com> Date: October 6, 2018 at 7:35:59 PM CDT To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�, riones@cityofdubuque.or�, dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�, bshaw@cityofdubuque.or�, Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�, irios@cityofdubuqe.or� Subject:Why 5G cell towers could affect your health � Komando.com Why 5G cell towers could affect your health By Mark Jones, Komando.com i �, ��ii ; � ii,��i��/ ,i �� „ , ,,,� , , / % „ , � � � '� �� „ �/�� ;'; �; /�/� ,� r < � � ��i r , � �% f; i�/,� �j%/ � �� ' � J� /j ��' ,�� /!'! � % �� , i;� � �''�iio ;/ � '� ��m� � rf,;. , ';� � r � // ,. � r /� % ,; �� , �� ii� � 'r, � w . � f�//%�� i � r � � '�,,, r�/%%%iiiiiiiiiiii ��w��w� � % � �, �� i �iii%%%/i � j; %� %. //�i ii ii �i�� , '� , , / ,�r ,,,, j ��i� % ;; ,,,,,; ��,,,, /;, ,/ �� ;, �,. �/ � ' ,, �///��,,,,,,,, , , �i ' %'; � �j°i�%%�%� � ,`/, / � � � j°%�, i ,///� ; � /; �� iaaa� ! ", ,li i la; �;;, �j � .;%///%�f// � r ;;�0 . : � ;iai ; �� 1i. ��,,,: j// � J � ��', rr�l //„ 1 �i�W(i/iooiiiriii/� �� %�i;; �� r�i/' � � �%,;,: � , , / ; %iiii ' ��j� I��1�, / �j... �.�",�' 1 J; "��%%%/;, �� %�iii �� !/ / „,/ �j/„ ��mm I%� i� :,� � %% rr j% !�� ,/�� ,"� %;;,' i� j i , ,/ �� ,% % � ;,, %t iii � �%/!/////// � ��' , 1 � l/ /' �I p@ u'll oouioiinuu0 % �ii .. ��4i iiirN��41�� /jri i� � ��uN�i�i��l`1 �:.. ��%�� j % //, h, � �i �%;, �,,�` I ",J ��., /�, ,�„ )I 14 � ' i ,,,;y�a� �j�� „ /�� I II ......`Il�I�'��1�II�� i ��, �;, !+ J /�/,';,,�� %%�i;, ,,,,,,,, / � ..,, j /, ,��l� � ,� tl��I�`��Il��llf Cl��i%��%%O/ ,� , j �,;, ,�i ��,;; �iiiiiiiiiiiiir ; � �1i1� � ,p� �� , / ,,,,,, ,///%///i��ai/i� � j,,,,,,;;;,;; / �iiiii��i%%%� y � / ��% ��II��% ;,%�� /�/%',,,,, �� //,/%/ �/i�� ,,��J � �/ /// f �`�� II��I�!/; �;: � � �///////////%��, � �f��/�� ;�/,,, �� /��//��//��/��j iii/�%iii/�j �„ i%/ ///: f� �� IIIIII IIII II�IIIII III IIII f��/O/////////%��j��jj� »>��wi'�V�I / , Are you excited about the upcoming 5G technology? This, of course, is the fifth generation wireless broadband technology that is on the way. It operates with a 5Ghz signal and will offer super-fast speeds when compared to 4G networks. Unfortunately, there could be some negative health effects that come along with this new technology. Why is 5G technology causing health concerns? The reason some people are worried about negative effects of 5G technology is all the new cell towers that are going up. Millions of new towers are being installed all across the U.S. by wireless carriers. They are needed to provide faster speeds that come with 5G. z Adam Koeppe, VP of Network Planning at Verizon said, "5G technology innovation is rapidly evolving. Network density is increasing to meet the demands of customers, and following the FCC's aggressive action on 5G spectrum, the time is right to deliver the next generation of broadband services with 5G." With millions of new cell towers comes an increase in generated radio frequencies (RF). Some people are worried that this will increase the potential of getting cancer. Fears have been circulating for years about cellphones possibly causing cancer from RF and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. With the increased use of smartphones over the years, those fears have grown. Over 230 scientists from 41 nations have signed an International EMF Scientist Appeal. The appeal talks about serious concerns of increased exposure to EMF based on a number of recent scientific publications that link low levels of wireless radiation to health problems. These scientists are asking for stronger regulations and publicly funded studies on health effects from cell towers. This could help confirm or debunk the fears people have. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), these fears are unfounded. The ACS said, "Cellphones work by sending signals to (and receiving them from) nearby cell towers using RF waves. This is a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. "They don't have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA. "At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. But the levels of energy given off by cellphones are much lower, and are not enough to raise temperatures in the body." What do you think? Do additional cell towers concern you? Leave a comment and tell us your thoughts. 3 Windows users must do this one thing to deal with dangerous Spectre chip flaw With hardware and software vendors scrambling to issue patches and fixes to protect consumers from the massive chip flaws Spectre and Meltdown, it hasn't really been smooth sailing. The updates are buggy and they're even causing systems to fail. To counteract these issues, Microsoft has just issued another emergency fix for Windows systems and you probably won't like what it actually does. �_��M��_k��°��_¢�_� ��_��u�¢ �r�rk�s�¢_¢k��_�s�¢_��¢ ��,��°��y ��_��r�r��_��s�¢�,k�_��_��_��°my��uM�. �9��:¢: �°w¢:��°y Source: ��°w • ��w��s��°� .�k�� '� s�@��¢�� uM�¢:�;�°�� _ , __�____ , _ �___________ . �"�� k��_�M�� • !"�6� �.��¢:�r��°��:. • �� .��¢:�r��°��:. . k��s:��¢:k�. Sent from my iPad Click here to report this email as spam. 4 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 8:22 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl; Jake A. Rios Subject: Fwd: California Community Mounts a Fight Against 5G Infrastructure Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: David Burrows<dburrows@shaffer-burrows.com> Date: October 6, 2018 at 7:37:02 PM CDT To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�, riones@cityofdubuque.or�, Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�, irios@cityofdubuqe.or�, dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�, bshaw@cityofdubuque.or� Subject: California Community Mounts a Fight Against 5G Infrastructure California Community Mounts a Fight Against 5G Infrastructure Residents in San Rafael have launched a pre-emptive effort to prevent telecoms from installing small cell antennas throughout the city. by Keri Brenner, The Marin Independent Journal /August 22, 2018 i i�' +1%/ �/ //� � � r � /� �r�iiiiiiiii,,, //r // �i/ � /ii�i � �f � ��/� //��j ,�, ;�� /// e, � / i// a / i � i I % � JJ e / � i / ;//% / �s i�' f�� /� : � i IJ �� , �- „ ,,, r/ %�,;, %% � � ��j„/ri��i/�� m� ,, �� i i �� ,��i„� � � i �'� � ��/ �%i��'� „ � 'x, y , ,,,�� ,l� ��i ,��/„�/��,�� " i � I �! /��/i ��// %///�/�%////%ii iii/////��, V /�� i/ ��/� �� /// j � !� ��/��// /� � � �` /� / �� ,..��,., '�� // ,;,,., „ '.�, �� f�,��ic�j/� / �j/,,,; �� 1 �� / ��/� �// ,, �1 , �� i/� / /%, �/ � / ��,,,, , �/ �/, � rl �� "'�,/r� ��;;;;��io ��a. ��/ � �%, ,�� /////////////////////! , , � ,,, � // ,,,,,,,,,, � � ,�l � , ,,,,,,,,;,� � � ��iiiiiia, � �� i � / „ % i��/, , , ; ' � J� I � I� �f / � '' I �� ff� j; � I � � � �� iiiiiiiiiiiii//,'„ � I � I� j /�%% � " , � ;�'�� ` ��r f ��j�%%/iii " I ( I.I //,/„/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/,/////,,,,!! ,,,,// , f// ��,''% , , /ii��o� %,,,,,,,,,,,, „� �iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii / I �� . /�%��;�%�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii%�%%%%% , . � ��1;% i��o��;i�� 11 i i j /%/% I� II�� / j/�%%/�%/ iii ' � J ��%i „ ,,, „ ; �J / ,��%//,/,/,/,/,//,//,///��//%%%%%///i, i w /iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,,;;,,,iiiiviiiiiiiiiiii2 � �� %%%%%%/�, , µ, , ' I ,;; � /�, �/�,,,,,,,,,; ; , I j %/iii,,,,,,,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/%�//%;/��iiiiii„ � .. �� // ....... �r'�'��i „ �. II ////////////%/////,///////////////////i � � � � � ///////iiiiiiiiii ,,,, i � /,,' /,,, /%/%��,,, i �� ,, /iii,,,;;;;,,, , II �� /�%;;,,,,, ,�II � � /�/%��/� , Small cell antenna installations, similar to this one, are becoming increasingly popular in cities across the country �wk�u�_¢¢��°��¢,�� ..��,�°�s��_��k��°��k�,��M�, (TNS) — San Rafael residents have launched a campaign to block cellphone companies from attempting to build 5G towers in Marin. The 5G towers, which would allow for faster and higher-capacity video streaming and other transmissions, could��s��,��°@_�s�_¢��_k��sM��¢:k� ��,��¢��;�� already suspected as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields, Vicki Sievers, of the ;� �`i�e �°ws��¢µy �9��¢:wr�r_��°��m, told the San Rafael City Council on Monday. z According to the EMF Safety Network website, those symptoms can include fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, ringing in the ears and increased cancer risk. "We've experienced 2G, 3G, 4G and now, on the horizon, is a fifth generation called millimeter wave technology," Sievers said after her presentation that brought standing applause from about 20 people at the packed meeting. "Around the world, doctors and scientists are gravely alarmed about the biological and physiological effects of that technology." Sievers said no permits for 5G so-called "small cell" towers have been issued in Marin as of yet— though they have in other Bay Area cities — and she suspects they are being planned in San Rafael and Marin. "[We want] amendments to the current telecommunications ordinance — which has not been reviewed since 2004 — that protect residential areas, schools and parks through setbacks and attention to power profiles," Sievers said in an email Tuesday. According to Sievers, San Anselmo, Fairfax and Mill Valley are working on strengthening their cell tower ordinances. "Our effort has to do with making pre-emptive strikes before Verizon,AT&T [and others] actually make formal applications to each town and city," Sievers said. "There are no applications in San Rafael to date, but there surely have been permits granted and installations begun in other Bay Area cities." In May, Verizon was forced to withdraw its application to build two "small cell" towers in Sebastopol after four months of heavy opposition by residents and attorneys for the EMF Safety Network. "Several of us San Rafael residents went to the (San Rafael) council on Feb. 20 (when the Sebastopol issue arose), urging them to prevent such debacles here," Sievers said. San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips said Tuesday he was not aware of any ongoing activity to strengthen or upgrade cell tower regulations in the city and there were no immediate plans for further discussion. "It kind of came a little bit out of the blue," he said of Monday's presentation. 3 EMFs include wireless radiation emitted by cell towers, cell and cordless phones, smart meters, smart grid, Wi-Fi and computers, power lines, fluorescent lights, indoor wiring and other electronic devices, according to the EMF Safety Network. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the jury is still out on the health risks of exposure to EMFs. "Studies have shown that some workers exposed to high magnetic fields have increased cancer rates," the CDC reported on its website. "But such associations do not necessarily show that EMF exposures cause cancer (any more than the springtime association of robins and daffodils shows that one causes the other). Scientists have looked carefully at all the EMF evidence, but they disagree about the health effects of EMFs except to say that better information is needed." According to ¢:k��_�r��¢�� rk�s�¢��'"��_��,M��'��, the 5G "small cell" tower "will include the higher millimeter wave frequencies never before used for internet and communications technology. These waves do not travel easily through buildings so 5G will require millions of new cell towers. The wireless telecom industry is aggressively seeking to outfit nearly every lamppost and utility pole around the country with a wireless `small cell' antenna beaming hazardous radiation next to, or into our homes, 24/7." San Rafael resident Chandu Vyas said Monday he is wary of EMFs after a health challenge about five years ago. He said he developed severe and constant headaches after a smart meter was installed at his home. The headaches went away after he "opted out" and had the smart meter at his property removed. "I don't want to go through the same health problem again," he told the City Council. "I ask your help." Kiah Bosy of Chi Home Design showed the council how her EMF meters ratcheted up to high pitch when she walked toward a TV screen in front of the council chambers. "It's serious," she said. "We're microwaving each other." �02018 The Marin IndependentJournal(Novato, Calif.) Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 5G Stories Mapped by City and State 4 See the big picture of howgovernment agencies are utilizing 5G by exploring our Government Technology editorial databasegeographically visualized by location and date. �i�:��e �e"��:��i �9�°¢:�r�r��°��:. SPONSORED ARTICLES Sent from my iPad Click here to report this email as spam. 5 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 8:20 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Cc: Ric W. Jones Subject: Fwd: Verizon Transmitter at Creston & Rosemont Sharing with you Mike and Kevin. Added you Ric as they had your email incorrect. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: David Burrows<dburrows@shaffer-burrows.com> Date: October 6, 2018 at 7:19:09 PM CDT To: rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�, rione@cityofdubuque.or�, dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�, bshaw@cityofdubuque.or�, Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�, irios@cityofdubuqe.or� Subject:Verizon Transmitter at Creston & Rosemont We are writing to you all to object to Verizon's 5G small cell transmitter going in at the above location. We are also concerned why the neighborhood was not given a chance to comment on this issue. We live at 1750 Rosemont. We have read that these towers pose significant health issues that affect our skin, eyes, hearts, immune systems and antibiotic resistance to bacteria. We have read that children are in particular danger. We are also told to expect a 20%drop in property values. We were not given any notice of this and we fear the council has sold out citizen interests. We are appalled at how this has come about. Shame on you! David & Lori Burrows 1750 Rosemont St. Dubuque, IA 563-599-0995 Sent from my iPad Click https://www.mai Icontrol.com/sr/�I R54EV1G!bGX2PQPOmvU rwS+HatISAf9ofBQ�Y7xf4vM mu+XGqQzRJs NImCnRe�fblKp�p6�SqU8yB5sLY89Q== to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 9:14 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: Viote on Oct lst to allow Verizon to put a cell tower in our neighborhood From: susydinger@mchsi.com <susydinger@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 8:11:14 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject:Viote on Oct 1st to allow Verizon to put a cell tower in our neighborhood Our name is Jim and Sue Denlinger,we live at 3915 Creston St Dubuque, lowa 52002. I am asking that you as city council members reconsider your vote to place a cell tower by Verizon in our neighborhood. First of all I am wondering why we did not receive any kind of notice from the City of Dubuque asking for our in put before you as Council members voted on this?That seems that would have been the right thing to do? I have been informed that this 5G small cell transmitter can be harmful to our health and that of our children and grandchildren. I can't believe that you would want one of these towers in your backyard. Because of the health risks are home values could also decrease,because new buyers might not want a cell tower near them. I would think that these towers if needed at all could be put in a different area rather then in a neighborhood. Wouldn't fiber optic cabling be safer and smarter and more reliable then a harmful 5G cell tower?Again we are asking that you reconsider your vote at your next meeting and I think that it is your duty to keep us more informed before you do something like this rather then after. Sincerely Jim and Sue Denlinger Click https://www.mai Icontrol.com/sr/Ue45d nXOw3fGX2PQPOmvU I D8rK3oGsFSXA�OG+j hv+rApLu3GczFnwbDRveHza EPHopS h987b5vunSc2+�YIXA== to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Cori Burbach Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 9:53 AM To: City Counci) Cr. Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Citizen correspondence re: 5G cell towers Good morning City Council members, The following message was submitted via WebQA to a City department. We have let the resident know that his/her concern has been passed on to City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Cori On 10/1/2018 10:39:24 PM,christinalemmon@yahoo.com wrote: Please do not allow 5G cell towers near homes or businesses. We have corn field in Iowa...LOTS of them. Put the toes in corn fields instead of risking so many lives! Email address:�h_risti_naI_e_rn�_rn�_crn_(c�..ya_h_crcr.:_ccr_rn� Cori Burbach Assistant City Manager City of Dubuque 50 W 13t" St Dubuque IA 52001 563-589-4110 www.:_c i t.yca.�d_u_k�u..�u_�_:�_r� 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis De) Toro Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 5:08 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: 5G small cell transmitter locations From: Katrina Wilberding<wilberd@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 4:33:36 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Luis Del Toro; Ric W.Jones; Kate Larson; David Resnick;Jake A. Rios; Brett Shaw Subject: 5G small cell transmitter locations Dubuque City Council Members: In the past, I have worked with many of you as we have supported and worked with area businesses. I strive to be well- informed and empathetic to both sides of an issue. I have 2 comments about the locations of the new 5G small cell transmitter towers. #1- I was disappointed and angry to learn that residents near one of the proposed locations were given such little notice. We cannot expect participation and support from residents when communication is neither timely nor open. I was happy to see the week's pause to try to correct this. #2-As long as there is ANY health question,this should not be allowed in residential areas. I have not reviewed all the science on either side of this question. But I have had extensive, nearly life long experience being an exception to what mainstream medical science says is the rule. And I have seen how many times these rules have been adjusted and sometimes reversed. It is important to remember that the earliest science reports are funded by the pockets that expect to be filled. Early anecdotal evidence is often the impetus for further study. Regardless of the science involved, since there is a legitimate concern by affected residents and relocation is only an inconvenience to the business involved,the city should not appear to "regulate" but work with the business to find another location. Katrina Wilberding 563-580-7357 J�m:ao�ro��l��.��u��l�,��:�,� '�� Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Roy D. Buo) Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:13 AM To: Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fwd: counter argument FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:frank belcastro<fpbelcast@�mail.com> Date: October 9, 2018 at 9:39:31 PM CDT To: "Brett M. Shaw" <bshaw@cityofdubuque.or�>, "David T. Resnick" <dresnick@cityofdubuque.or�>, "Jake A. Rios" <irios@cityofdubuque.or�>, "Kate M. Larson" <kmlarson@cityofdubuque.or�>, Luis Del Toro<Ideltoro@cityofdubuque.or�>, "Ric W.Jones" <riones@cityofdubuque.or�>, roy buol <rdbuol@cityofdubuque.or�> Subject: counter argument https://www2.�ov.bc.ca/�ov/content/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial- health-officer/current-health-topics/radiofrequency-and-health/smart-meter-and-cancer-risk-statement Click here to report this email as spam. i Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Thursday,October 11, 2018 11:13 AM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: SGtoweropposition From: Abigail Tebbe, D.C. <ATebbe@hfwmail.net> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:46:20 AM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: 5G tower opposition Hello, I am just writing all of you with my concerns for the implementation of the 5G towers in DBQ. • 5G poses greater public health risks than previous generations of wireless technology. --Science shown 5G will cause an increase of cancer and other conditions that affect our skin, our eyes, our hearts and our immune systems --5G is scientifically linked to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which means antibiotic treatments will be less effective --Children are most susceptible because their blood-brain barrier has not been fully developed • Scientists worldwide are calling for a halt to the 5G rollout. In 2017, over 180 scientists and doctors issued a declaration calling for a moratorium on the increase of 5G cell antennas citing human health effects and impacts to wildlife. • There is a safer alternative. Worldwide, many regions invest in safer and smarter fiber optic cabling all the way to each home, rather than antennas in front yards. Wired fiber-optic connections are safer, faster, more reliable, provide greater capacity, and are more cyber-secure. • Telecommunications companies are putting their profits above our health. Politically connected telecommunications giants like Verizon say that local regulation isn't appropriate for small cells and they want to cut local governments' say in the process. They cite limits put in place by the FCC, but the FCC is staffed by former members of the telecommunications industry. • Our local government is not being transparent or taking these health concerns seriously. The City Council did not give adequate notice to residents before voting to allow installation of a 5G tower in our backyard. They also voted in March to sign a 20-year contract with Verizon, giving the company power to install "similar towers" at any time, without input or questions from citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter Dr. AbbyTebbe Health From Within Dubuque 4855 Asbury Rd. Ste. 6 Dubuque lowa 52001 (563) 556-6252 (office) (563) 343-6825 (cell) 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:56 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: SG Network in Dubuque From:Jade Angelica <jadeangelica@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 201810:46:15 AM To: Roy D. Buol; Brett Shaw; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios; Luis Del Toro; David T. Resnick; Mike Van Milligen; Ric W. Jones Subject: 5G Network in Dubuque Dear Mayor Buol, Council Members, and Mr. Van Milligan, As a concerned citizen, I am writing to you to voice my objection to the installation of a 5G network in Dubuque. The safety of this type of technology is still unproven, and a vote to confirm a 5G netowrk will be putting all of us at risk. To support this position, I include this 2018 article from the Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/news- and-analvsis/2018/07/despite-health-concerns-fcc-and-states-clear-wav-next-generation-wireless#.W74Ysv MzqO In one of his communications, Councilman Jones stated: "As a health care professional and as a City Councin Member, I adhere to the primary rule of Medicine: `First, do now harm.' I understand your concerns and fears and I am confident that we are not doing harm." I'm not sure where this confidence comes from, but I fear it is wrong-headed. In the Spring, I met with my primary care doctor, Angela Kelley, DO at Dubuque's Grand River Medical Clinic. I took her an article about how chemicals in the environment are causing all kinds of health problems. Her reply was, "Yes, I know. And the next thing we have topay attention to is reactions to EMFs in the environment." I was surprised, because I thought I was educating her! But health risks from exposure to technology radiation is something Dubuque doctors are already aware of. And I share my personal experience. In 2015 I spent 3 months in Tulsa, OK, staying with someone who had wifi in her home and working in an office with wifi everywhere. While I was there I experienced tachycardia -a rapid heart rate caused by a problem with the heart's electrical system. When I came home to my house, where I do not have wifi or a smart phone (my cell phone is a flip phone that I turn on very rarely, such as in the car when I am lost or running late), the tachydardia eventually subsided. In case you don't already know, as Alliant Energy is preparing to install Smart Meters on homes in Dubuque, they are following the lead of power companies throughout the country; they are giving individual citizens the opportunity to OP- Out of having a smart meter installed on our homes. I am already on this OP-Out list. You also might not know that the town of Fairfield, IA blocked the installation of Smart Meters throughout the entire town. My concern about the installation of a 5G network in Dubuque, especially given the prevalance of the location of the towers, is that you will be taking away the rights of citizens like me who desire to protect ourselves from EMF exposure, and who are responsibly making decisions to do so. If your intention as leaders of the city of Dubuque is honestly to exercise your powers in ways that do no harm to the citizens, voting "no" on this 5G network is the only responsible thing to do. Sincerely, 1 Jade Angelica 775 Groveland Place Dubuque, IA 52001 Rev. Dr.Jade Angelica,NIDiv., DMin. Interfaith Spiritual Direction &Alzheimer's Inspiration i adeaneelica@ etnail.com www.healin�tnoments.or� www.i adeaneelica.com 563-582-4724 "Our whole business in this life is to restore to health the eye of the hearl whereby God can be seen.�� Augustine of Hippo Click here to report this email as spam. z Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 5:00 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: SG at Creston and Rosemont From: Irene Bassler<mindylou6@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 11:33:20 AM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: 5G at Creston and Rosemont rdbuolC�citvofdubuque.or� rionesC�citvofdubuque.or� dresnickC�citvofdubuque.or� bshaw(q�citvofd u buq ue.or� IdeltoroC�citvofdubuque.or� kmlarson(q�citvofdubuque.or� iriosC�citvofdubuque.or� October8, 2018 Greetings to all, It has been brought to my attention that the city of Dubuque is in the process of planning the implantation of placing 5G towers in residential neighborhoods, particularly Creston and Rosemont Sts. This peaked my interest since my grandchildren live on Creston St and my husband and I are considering moving back into the city. I also know there is much controversy regarding the safety regarding 5G towers so I decided to do a little of my own research. After much reading of lots of materials both pro and con I have to admit I am very concerned about your decision to place these towers in residential neighborhoods. Whv would vou place our communitv, especiallv our voun� parents and our voun�children so close to the potential dan�ers of 5G? This is not just some concern of a few "overly concerned left winged environmentalists" --from my research and understanding this is a concern of worldwide scientists. It doesn't take much time to research this issue and find all of the information that suggests we must S-L-O-W down and reconsider where we are placing these towers. It is my understanding you have signed a 20 year contract and "can't get out of iY'—but you should be able to decide where to place the towers. I also know enough to know that if I want to place a structure on my property I have to submit in writing my plans and then get permission from not only my neighbors but also the city and the Zoning Board. But you, the city council can just place possible dangerous 5G towers any place you want next to anybody's property—and not send letters to inform the residents that are closest to the tower—how fair is that? With all due respect I suggest it is not fair to your citizens. I am respectfully asking you to reconsider placing 5G towers in any residential neighborhoods as it may just affect my grandchildren—or yours for that matter. Please review any of the below websites that I reviewed to obtain my information. • https://www.electricsense.com/12399/Sa-radiation-danaers/ • https://www.aemalto.com/mobile/inspired/5G 1 • https://www.defendershield.com/Sa-technoloav-safe-emf-radiation-emissions • https://www.cbsnews.com/news/Sa-network-cell-towers-raise-health-concerns-for-some-residents • https://www.dailvmail.co.uk/health/article-5784487/The-roll-SG-wireless-service-massive-health-experiment-public- health-expert-warns-a.html • https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/Sa-cell-towers-danaerous/ Sincerely, Mindy Bassler, 13774 Surrey Lane Dubuque IA 52002 Click here to report this email as spam. z Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:58 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: a certain model From: frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:33:13 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: a certain model Fear of fire hazard causes removal of thousands of smart meters https://www.cbc.ca/news/ca nada/toronto/fear-of-fi re-hazard-ca uses-removal-of-thousands-of-sma rt-meters- 1.2928314 Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:58 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: studies From: frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:36:28 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: studies http://emfsafetvnetwork.or�/smart-meters/ Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:58 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: counter argument From: frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:39:31 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: counter argument https://www2.�ov.bc.ca/�ov/conte nt/hea Ith/about-bc-s-heal th-ca re-system/office-of-the-provi ncia l-hea Ith- officer/cu rrent-health-topics/rad iofreq uencv-a nd-hea Ith/sma rt-meter-a nd-ca ncer-risk-state ment Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:59 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: scholarly article From: frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:27:30 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: scholarly article https://www.computer.org/csd I/mags/sp/2009/03/msp2009030075-abs.html Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:59 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: smart meter privacy concerns From: frank belcastro<fpbelcast@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:26:04 PM To: Brett Shaw; David T. Resnick; Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Ric W. Jones; Roy D. Buol Subject: smart meter privacy concerns https://smartqridawareness.orq/privacv-and-data-securitv/how-smart-meters-invade-individual- rip vacv/ The principal privacy and security concerns surrounding installation of residential smart meters are (1) smart meters will reveal the activities of people inside of a home by measuring their electricity, gas, or water usage frequently over time, and (2) that inadequate cyber security measures surrounding the digital transmission of smart meter data will expose it to misuse by authorized and unauthorized users ofthe data. More specifically, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-profit group, has listed on its website the following potential privacy consequences of smart grid and smart meter systems: Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:55 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: SG tower From: Mgindorf<mgindorff@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 201812:31:37 PM To: Luis Del Toro Subject: 5G tower Please reconsider the vote to bring 5G towers to Dubuque. More studies need to be done about it's dangers. Sincerely, Margie Gindorff Sentfrom myiPhone Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/53fRYcBc!!rGX2PQPOmvUgfUspOYW KRbHaFCxT5i1iia8QDCoJ Kg3nvZllO5o0 W231qvvv XLSRMhR!AbTPK7tQ== to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:55 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: SG CELL TOWER AT THE INTERSECTION OF CRESTON/ROSEMONT OPPOSE From: Karin Harbin <karin@x-grain.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 8:44:01 AM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: 5G CELLTOWER AT THE INTERSECTION OF CRESTON/ROSEMONT-OPPOSE My name is Karin Harbin and I live at 1805 Rosemont St. here in Dubuque. It has been brought to my attention that there is an approved 5G Cellphone Transmitter that is going to be installed on the corner of Creston and MY Street of Rosemont. I am in opposition to this being installed in a residential neighbor, especially mine. As residents, we were not notified DIRECTLY that this was up for approval and should have been. I certainly respect the fact that we all want faster and better internet/cell service but certainly I am not willing to put my family's health at risk to do so. Yes, there has been testing done that says it is safe- but it is my understanding that most of those tests that were done to get this technology approved was not done by independent consultants and is biased. I understand by the sounds of it that these 5G Transmitters will be installed in our community. However, PLEASE consider moving this cell transmitter out of residential areas which will better limit our exposure to this potentially harmful effects of this new and stronger technology. I do plan to do some additional research on this, my family and my neighbors do not wish to be the guinea pigs for "trying this ouY' in our community. I appreciate your consideration of this change of its location. Thank you! Karin Harbin Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:57 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw:Installation of SG transmitter at Creston/Rosemont From:jerry hermsen<jk29hermsen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 12:23:09 PM To: rdbual@cityofdubuque.org; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; kmalarson@cityofdubuque.org;Jake A. Rios Subject: Installation of 5G transmitter at Creston/Rosemont Dearcouncil members, We are writing you to express our concern about your recent vote to allow installation of the 5G transmitter on the corner of Creston/Rosemont street. We live at 3860 Creston St. and we are concerned about the possible health risk with this new technology. We are also disappointed that we were not informed about this installation before your vote. We ask that you each reconsider your vote to place this cell tower in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and your willingness to serve on the city council. Sincerely, Jerry and Kris Hermsen Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnrtahl Fram: Wis �elTom SenC Wetlnestlay, Otlober10, 2018445PM Ta: KevinFirn9aFl; MikeVanMilligen SubjevC Fw: Sgtrensmi��erMsemon� s� From: Rudlgeq Sue cSRudlger@medllne.cam> Sen[: W ednesday, O[tobe� 10, 2018 4263J PM To: Noy �. Buol; Nic W Jones; 6avid T. Nunlck; BreLL SFaw; W is �el Tom; Ka�e Larson;lake A. Nios Sublem Sg vansmiuer Rosemont st I live at ll80 Roremont Stantl it has been bmught m my attention ffiata Sgtansmitterwill be ir�mlletl atffie rot Cres[on antl Roremont St Thk islurt a frw houres tlown from my hmily antl at first I wam't lotnetlmtilltlitlsomereatlinguponit IhavebeeninMisNeighborhootlPorl8yearsantllhaveseena othmilies mme antl go antl recenHy wi[h greatloy I have seen a lot of newhmilies moving in. Onesffiat cently marrietl antl expecting chiltlren, Oneswiffi young Chiltlren antl onesffiat have young grantichiltlren. Otwhat I have reaq ffiese mwers can be very tlangemusantl create many healffi nsks wiM leng[hy expowre. Once Me Sg k inrtalletl we as restlents have no say towartlsffie upgratlesto 6g, )gPora periotl of twenTy years. I honestty ffiink itMis Sgvaremimrisas tlangemusas I have reaq I am a IRtle tlisappointetl ffiatffik was approvetl m be inrtalletl without our knowletlge. Not only woultl it put us in the neighborhootl at risk but the hct ffiatffiere is a school in ffiat same area Mat an expore huntlretls ot kitlsm ffie many healffi nsks. I am wre wiffi mtlaystechnology, ffiere isa safrralmmafive. Since I have livetl in my home, I have tleak wiM high school kitls parking in my tlnveway, high school kitls sning on my fronts[epsantl incretlible amomts of garbage in my yartl. The neighborhootl came mgeMerantl tlays� e able m make ours[reet a permit parkingrneet antl all Mat wentaway. Then I tleak wiM ffie entlless antl nights of ffie new mnrnuction ot Hempmatl in my backyartl. One night indutletl mncrem being cut at ll'.00 pm. I was patientantl tlealt wRh Me noise antl have even leametl to accept Me giant bnght lights in my backyartl, but m be honestwiffi you ffiis really scares me. I tlodtwant my hmily antl Me people I love in this neighborhootl m be at risk of any health pmblems. I hope you will take our little mmmunity in m ��meai�o� a�a re�e�re me�om. Thankyouforyourtime, � SueRutli6erl AcmurR Sery ce Rep Metlllnelntlushie; lnc. metllln �. 066-091-0655Ext63606361PFone) 06Gd41-6/SJ �Fax) BOOd513512�FaxONers) smtll¢er(dmetlllne.com Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Wednesday, October 10,2018 4:56 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fw: Concern regarding the installation of SG cell transmitters for the city From: Coni Stephenson <coni.stephenson@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:27:09 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson;Jake A. Rios Subject: Concern regarding the installation of 5G cell transmitters for the city Dear Mayor Buol and Council Members, I feel a great need to share my concern about the planned installation of the 5G cell transmitters for our city. I am a nurse for 38 years and also live with the diagnosis of MS. I have worked for the last 8 years to avoid toxins and anything that could cause worsening of my MS. I have read the information provided by both sides of this situation and i feel as our mayor and council that you need to strongly reconsider the installation of these transmitters in our neighborhoods, potentially causing unnecessary illness for the people of our city. While the initial installation is not in my neighborhood, if you move ahead with this, it will eventually be coming to all our neighborhoods, with many people having no idea of their potentially ill effects. Information indicates that letters calling for a moratorium on 5g technology have been submitted by doctors and professors from around the world to various lawmakers urging that this technology has very real potential dangers and should not be rushed into implementation. I feel until you have reviewed all the information for all the potential side effects that again could make our city and the people in the neighborhoods of installation ill, that you consider an appeal or a re-vote prior to the 10/15/18 Council Meeting. This could be to get the tower moved to an area away from our neighborhoods. I am asking you this as a nurse and a citizen of Dubuque, that you have been voted in to improve and protect our city. Sincerely, Coni Stephenson 645 Duggan Dr., Unit B Dubuque, IA 52003 coni.stephensonC�amail.com Ph: 563-599-6572. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Thursday,October 11, 2018 8:43 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw: Halt SG From:Julie Haufe <jhaufe@stateraintegrated.com> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:28:01 PM To: bshaw@cotyofdubuque.org; David T. Resnick;Jake A. Rios; Kate Larson; Luis Del Toro; Roy D. Buol; Ric W.Jones Subject: Halt 5G Please vote no on 5G until more is known about its effect on humans and our environment. Scientist and doctors are concerned with this type of EMF increasing health risks. We do not need to create quicker data streaming at the risk of health to pregnant women, infants, children or anyone! Dubuque is a city maintaining beauty, history, and wildlife riverfront It should be a clean city- including frequencies. Please consider what is best for Dubuque residents and it's visitors! Thank you for your consideration in voting NO against 5G in Dubuque. Sent from my iPhone Julie Haufe, LMT Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and/or protected health information (PHI) and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). This transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to this email and deleting this email and any attachments from any computer. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Thursday,October 11, 2018 4:36 PM To: Mike Van Milligen; Kevin Firnstahl Subject: Fwd: SG Technology Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Angie Sorrell <iamangie70@me.com> Date: October 11, 2018 at 2:02:20 PM CDT To: rdbuol@citvofdubuque.or�, riones@citvofdubuque.or�, dresnick@citvofdubuque.or�, bshaw@citvofdubuque.or�, Ideltoro@citvofdubuque.or�, kmlarson@citvofdubuque.or�, iriosC�citvofdubuque.or� Subject: SG Technology To whom it may concern, I would like to request that you reconsider your vote concerning 5G installation in Dubuque and revote at your next meeting on October 15th. This technology is not safe and has been shown to contribute to enormous cancer growth. The industry science is "inconclusive," however, the independent science tells us it is dangerous. Industry science is almost always skewed in order to make profit. I think the citizens of Dubuque, the visitors and/or workers of Dubuque deserve better. Will the city of Dubuque be paying citizens medical bills when they become ill from this 5G technology? How many lawsuits will be filed?Are you willing to risk your family's health and would you put one of these towers in your front yard? I feel that we have more than enough EMF emitting, cancer causing, mental health impacting technology today with all of the cell phone towers, WiFI, smart meters, etc., do we really need to add more to an already toxic environment? https://mdsafetech.or�/5�-te lecomm u nications-science/ https://www.5�spacea ppeal.or�/the-a ppea I https://sa nfra ncisco.cbsloca I.com/2018/01/25/consu merwatch-5�-cel I phone-towers-si�nal-renewed- concerns-over-i m pacts-on-health/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policv/2018/10/cities-will-sue-fcc-to-stop-2-billion-�iveawav-to-wi reless- carriers Mr Jones stated during the last city council meeting that the radiation from the 5G towers won't be harmful because it is not the ionizing kind. However, the science shows that non-ionizing radiation has been found to be harmful for people even without heating (thermal) effects and that besides harming people's health, it is also been found to be harmful to bees and other beneficial insects. 1 I don't currently reside within the city of Dubuque, but will no longer bring my weekly business to Dubuque if these dangerous 5G towers are installed. I currently have a choice to avoid putting my family in harms way by no longer visiting the city of Dubuque, but it doesn't seem as though the citizens of Dubuque are being given that option. Citizen's wellbeing should come first, without citizens there is no business to be had. Thank you, Angie Sorrell Dyersville resident Click here to report this email as spam. z Kevin Firnstahl From: Luis Del Toro Sent: Thursday,October 11, 2018 8:44 PM To: Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Subject: Fw:Implementation of SG From:Thomas Weitz <icancanoe@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:18:45 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro;jrois@cityofdubuque.org; Kate Larson Subject: Implementation of 5G Dear Mayor and Dubuque City Council Members, Please reconsider your decision to implement 5G. Yes, I am an "Alarmist" and for good reasons: • 5G poses greater public health risks than previous generations of wireless technology. -- Science shown 5G will cause an increase of cancer and other conditions that affect our skin, our eyes, our hearts and our immune systems -- 5G is scientifically linked to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which means antibiotic treatments will be less effective -- Children are most susceptible because their blood-brain barrier has not been fully developed • Scientists worldwide are calling for a halt to the 5G rollout. In 2017, over 180 scientists and doctors issued a declaration calling for a moratorium on the increase of 5G cell antennas citing human health effects and impacts to wildlife. • Decreased property values. Studies show property values drop up to 20%on homes near cell towers. Would you buy a home with a mini cell tower in the yard? • There is a safer alternative. Worldwide, many regions invest in safer and smarter fiber optic cabling all the way to each home, rather than antennas in front yards. Wired fiber-optic connections are safer,faster, more reliable, provide greater capacity, and are more cyber-secure. • Telecommunications companies are putting their profits above our health. Politically connected telecommunications giants like Verizon say that local regulation isn't appropriate for small cells and they want to cut local governments' say in the process. They cite limits put in place by the FCC, but the FCC is staffed by former members of the telecommunications industry. • Please be transparent and take these health concerns seriously. The residents of Dubuque deserve adequate notice and FULL DISCLOSURE of potential risks before a vote to allow installation of a 5G tower in our backyards. Please consider the following for additional research and keep mindful of the fact that over 75%of the non- industry studies show potential harm: https://www.bioinitiative.or�/ i Biolnitiative Report: A Rationale for a �"�� Y Biologically-based ... . .�� Anintemationalworkinggroupofscientists, researchersand �� public health policy professionals(The Biolnitiative Working ��.� �� : Group) hasreleaseditsreportonelectromagneticfelds�EMF) �� r�� andhealth.Theydocumentseriousscientificmncemsabout r t current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from �Jr„ r� ��,' �r (�' ' power lines, cell phones, and many other murces of EMF exposure in daily life. ,,., h�,.�,.�r��r�"o,..a htt os://www.oowerwatch.ore.0 k/ Powerwatch - Home Powerwatch is a small non-profit independent organisation with a central role in the UK EMF and Microwave Radiation health debate.We work with other like-minded groups and with decision-makers in govemment and business, promoting policies for a safer environment. https://W W W.emf-pOrtal.Ofp/e n EMF-Portal � Home The intemet information plafform EMF-Portal of the RWTH Aachen University summarizes rystematically scientifc research data on the effects of electromagnetic felds(EMF). http:lIWWW.I UStpfOV21t.f12t/StUd I25 Studies � Prove-It You may review the more than 5000 studies listed in these documents plus the searchable database below: It's one thing to be progressive and ahead of the curve, but not at the expense of the very lives you have been elected to serve.You cannot, MUST NOT,take this decision lightly and in haste without doing your due diligence. z Best regards, Tom Weitz, CHC 830 Kelly Lane Click here to report this email as spam. 3 THE CITY OF Dubuque � AIFA�erlwGh UB E '�� III► Masterpiece on the Mississippi Z°°'�w'2 7A13 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Federal and State Preemption which limit Dubuque's Authority and Options as it Relates to Regulation of Small Cell / 5G Communication Placements DATE: October 12, 2018 Information Services Manager Chris Kohlmann and Civil Engineer II Dave Ness have provided information on Federal and State Preemption limiting the authority of local governments as it relates to regulation of Small Cell / 5G Communication Placements. �� Mic ael C. Van Milligen �� MCVM:jh Attachment cc: David Lyons, GDDC Sustainable Innovation Coordinator Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager Randy Gehl, Public Information Office Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer Mary Rose Corrigan, Public Health Specialist Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Dave Ness, Civil Engineer II Dubuque THE CITY OF � D LJ L E Aii-America Cily � r Masterpiece on the Mississippi m zoa�•zaiz•zms•zov TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager Dave Ness, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Federal and State Preemption which limit Dubuque's Authority and Options as it Relates to Regulation of Small Cell / 5G Communication Placements DATE: October 11, 2018 INTRODUCTION We have reviewed the Council discussion and questions from the "Small Cell" public hearing October 1St . While the information and responses provided by Dave Lyons were generally correct, we thought it would be helpful for you and Council to have a more detailed staff overview of several key discussion points. This memo relates to one of those discussion points, namely pre-emption. BACKGROUND Broadly, the preemption principle refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority when the two authorities come into conflict. In other words, Federal law controls over State law, State law controls over Municipal ordinances. The basis for this "pre-emption" lies in the Supremacy Clause of the Federal and State Constitutions. Preemption applies whether the conflicting laws come from the legislatures, courts, administrative agencies or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of the Federal Congress, preempts state laws, regulations or court decisions on voting rights. Similarly, FDA (Federal Drug Administration) regulations preempt state or local decisions in areas involving prescription drugs. In the case of telecommunications, there exists a broad range of Federal preemptions. Chief among those is Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act which, while professing to preserve state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. Allegations that a state or local government has acted inconsistently with Section 332(c)(7) are to be resolved exclusively by the courts (with the exception of cases involving regulation based on the health effects of RF emissions, which can be resolved by the courts or the Commission). Similarly, at the State level in lowa the issue of preemption over local ordinances is unfortunately clear and unambiguous. For example, here is a portion of Chapter 8C of the lowa Code ("lowa Cell Siting Act"): 8C.3 Uniform rules and limitations— applications. In order to ensure uniformity across this state with respect to the consideration of every application, and notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, an authority shall not do any of the following: 5. Impose environmental testing, sampling, or monitoring requirements, or other compliance measures, for radio frequency emissions from transmission equipment that are categorically excluded under the federal communications commission's rules for radiofrequency emissions pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(b)(1). 6. Establish or enforce regulations or procedures for radio frequency signal strength or the adequacy of service quality. 7. Reject an application, in whole or in part, based on perceived or alleged environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, as provided in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(8)(iv). In March 2018, the FCC adopted a Report and Order R&O. In it, the FCC excluded small wireless facilities from National Historic Preservation Act (NPHA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review under specified circumstances and also streamlined NHPA and NEPA review for larger wireless facilities. The FCC concluded that deployment of small wireless facilities by non-Federal entities do not require historic preservation review under NHPA nor environmental review under NEPA because such deployments are neither an "undertaking" (NHPA) nor a "major Federal action" (NEPA). The Second R&O noted that the FCC last considered whether some wireless facilities could be exempt from these requirements in 2004 when virtually all wireless sites were "macro" sites, but that new small cell sites are materially different in size and in their likelihood of impact on surrounding areas. The FCC concluded that conducting such reviews for small wireless sites would result in costs far exceeding 2 i benefits and that the burden would grow exponentially as ever-increasing numbers of small wireless facilities are deployed. Here is the newly amended FCC rule that specifies the conditions for exclusion from NHPA and NEPA review for small wireless facilities: Section 1.1312(e): Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall not apply: 1 . to the construction of mobile stations; or 2. where the deployment of facilities meets the following conditions: (i) The facilities are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d), or the facilities are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or the facilities do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (ii) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding the associated equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in § 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (iii) 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; (iv) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under Part 17 of this chapter; (v) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR § 800.16(x); and (vi) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in � 1.1307(b). These changes were adopted by the FCC on a 3-2 vote. The changes went into effect on July 2, 2018. Given the level of specificity of pre-emption in this area, Staff has worked diligently to create a process that allows the City to maintain what control it can. Two examples ; include: � - Working with Carriers on Master Service and Sharing Agreements allows the City � to influence placements through voluntary action, something it could not do if the � Carrier chose to make its placements on private property or private utility within the City ROW. 3 - Creating early "site reviews" allowing City staff to inform carriers of its preferences and work collaboratively to accomplish those preferences. (For example, if a pole exists that already has power and holds City equipment, such as a traffic camera, we work to have the carrier co-locate versus placing a new pole and power box within the ROW). We are also looking at additional preferences we might gain in the future through this approach. For example, as our new data analysis system begins to inform us of areas of "un-" or "under-" served populations, we can seek to assure that future site locations by carriers assist in closing these service gaps for all citizens. ACTION STEP We are sorry that we do not have better news on the level of City authority in this area. We are aware that you and Council are receiving contacts on this issue and requests for action. The one action that looks available would be contacting Dubuque's state and federal delegations to determine whether there is an available path to regain City authority in this area. The National League of Cities, along with its local government partners, has fought this preemption order through comments to the FCC and advocacy on Capitol Hill, and will continue the fight in all three branches of the federal government. More detailed information from NLC is attached in the article "Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order" Please let us know if we can provide any additional information. Cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney David Lyons, Sustainable Innovations Consultant GDDC Mary Rose Corrigan, RN MSN Public Health Specialist Randy Gehl, Public Information officer 4 Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 1 of 7 �.i��.12�� EQUITY POLICY HOUSING ENVIRONMENT FINANCE HEALTH YOUTH _ _ �,, � .';r,s •,. -• '�,_ �: r. _ - \ ��: � t 1 � ♦ _ � ^ �, , ! +.� e. � `' � � ' '� > � es - C^ � �L. I ,,� r:, . ..:� �� •�: j�. �1 � �r,` �� :. � � ' � , r" ._ 1 �. { }" l .�;�j,+ .*i � r. �n P h �� s'� , .� , - "• � -._. e- I _. _.;-_-��_ '�.{�.,� ` ��- _. Five Ta keaways for Cities from the FCC's Sma I I Cel I Preem ption Order �� B}-Angelina Panettieri oii September 26,2oi8 �,�.. On Wednesday, September 26, the Federal Communications Commission voted to approve a declaratory ruling and report and order that would enact harsh new https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takeaways-for-cities-from-the-fccs-small-cel l-pree... 10/11/2018 Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 2 of 7 preemptions of local authority over small cell wireless facility deployment and management of local rights-of-way. The order will go into effect 90 days after publication of the final version in the Federal Register. As previously reported on CitiesSpeak, the order will: • Shorten the time cities have to process applications for small cells to either 60 or 90 days, depending on whether they are being mounted on an existing or new structure; • Limit application fees for small cells to $ioo per site, and recurring fees to $2�o per site, per year, for small cells in the rights-of-way; • Prohibit cities from assessing fees that include anything other than a "reasonable approximation" of"reasonable costs" directly related to maintaining the rights-of-way and the small cell facility; and • Limit aesthetic review and requirements (including undergrounding and historic/environmental requirements) to those that are reasonable, comparable to requirements for other rights-of-way users, and published in advance. NLC, along with its local government partners, has fought this preemption order through comments to the FCC and advocacy on Capitol Hill, and will continue the fight in all three branches of the federal government. The final text of the order was released September 2� and is substantially similar to the draft, with one noteworthy change: if cities notify wireless providers that applications are incomplete, they will be able to restart, rather than toll, the shot clock for that specific application. Here are five key takeaways for cities from the FCC's vote: . Cities Have an Image Problem Cities have faced an upswing in preemption from state and federal governments, particularly on telecommunications issues. This latest preemption is just further i https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takea�vays-for-cities-fi�om-the-fccs-small-cell-pree... 10/11/20 I 8 Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 3 of 7 evidence of an ongoing image problem for cities — namely that they are obstructions to business and to winning the "race to 5G," rather than innovators and builders of strong communities. Commissioner Mike O'Rielly described local governance as consisting of "ridiculous fees and prolonged delays," and Commissioner Brendan Carr, in his pre-vote statement, inaccurately depicted 5G deployment as a zero-sum battle between urban and rural areas, in which only preemption can save rural communities from the ambitions of large cities. Despite the leadership of cities like San Jose, California and Lincoln, Nebraska in deploying small cell wireless facilities, wireless advocates have convinced many policymakers that city leaders are not the best people to make decisions about their own communities and streets. A Wall Street Journal editorial published the morning of the FCC meeting claimed that "U.S. cities are throttling deployment with extortionist fees... [and] self-serving behavior from local politicians." The FCC's vote, the many state bills preempting local authority passed in the last several years, and the introduction of the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act in the Senate demonstrate that cities need to overcome this bias against local leadership. �. Cities Need to Educate Their Legislators However, federal policymakers can change their minds when they hear from their local leaders. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who both affirmed and dissented in part on the preemption order, told her fellow commissioners that "If we want to speed the way for 5G service, we need to work with cities and states across the country because they are our partners." Nine members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as senators from New York and Nevada sent letters to the FCC prior to its vote, urging the Commission not to hold the vote on this item, as it did not sufficiently incorporate the many objections raised by local governments. Commissioner Rosenworcel and the senators and representatives who objected to the preemption did https://c itiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takeaways-for-c ities-from-the-fccs-smal l-cel l-pree... 10/11/2018 Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 4 of 7 so in no small part because of the hundreds of city officials who called and sent letters to Congress and the FCC describing how the order would harm their communities. Very few members of Congress or their staff have personal experience with city administration, and even fewer have personal experience with managing telecommunications equipment in cities. Without helpful stories, data, and examples from local officials, these legislators have no evidence to counter the lobbying by wireless companies that claims cities need to be preempted to successfiilly deploy new technologies. While the FCC's action may reduce some of the urgency felt by members of Congress to legislate on small cell deployment, it's imperative for cities to keep educating Congress on how preemption widens, rather than narrows, the digital divide. ;. Cities Should Strengthen Their Own Policies and Procedures While NLC, its local association partners, and local governments around the country will fight the implementation of the order, cities should take a close look at their own policies and procedures around small cell deployment. Regardless of whether the order is implemented or not, small cell technology is here to stay, and cities need to prepare themselves to protect residents and streetscapes �vhile pushing for the best deployment they can get for their communities. In our recently-published Municipal Action Guide on Small Cell Wireless Technology in Cities, NLC identified some important best practices for cities to follow as they plan small cell deployment. In the face of new requirements for shorter shot clocks and stricter tests on aesthetic requirements, it is more important than ever for cities to work with community groups to determine and publish the specific requirements for successful deployment. These may include more detailed, neighborhood-by- neighborhood requirements regarding issues such as infrastructure density, color, or decorative pole requirements, to ensure that sensitive areas of the city are sufficiently � https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takea�vays-for-cities-from-the-fccs-small-cell-pree... 10/11/2018 Five Talceaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpealc Page 5 of 7 protected in advance. Any requirements imposed on providers must be available publicly before applications are submitted, so finalizing these requirements should be a first step for most communities. Cities should be cautious when working with providers on these proactive steps —while it is important to incorporate technical needs into design decisions, any pre-application consultation that could be considered mandatory will start the new, shorter shot clock timeline for application reviews. Cities should also consider updating requirements for other occupants of the rights-of-way to harmonize them with requirements for small wireless facilities, to ensure that no rights-of-way user can claim requirements are not neutrally applied. .. Cities Should Expect a Bumpy Road for Implementation As many communities noted in their comments to the FCC opposing this decision, the new order is likely to increase, rather than decrease, litigation over wireless deployment. This is because the order contains little guidance and few definitions and offers a great deal of leeway to future judges in cases between local governments and wireless providers over interpreting the reasonableness of local fees and aesthetic requirements. While this may have been intended to provide local governments with some degree of flexibility, this means that cities have little way to know what a "reasonable" consultant expense is if they do not have internal staff to manage small cell deployment, or what are "reasonable" aesthetic requirements, particularly as they relate to undergrounding requirements. Providers are likely to challenge local governments on these two points, particularly when a city sets rates at above the FCC-determined"safe harbor" rate of $2�o per small cell, per year, or if ineeting aesthetic requirements will increase the cost of a particular deployment. https://citiesspealc.org/2018/09/26/five-talceaways-for-cities-from-the-fccs-small-cell-pree... 10/11/2018 Five Takeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 6 of 7 Cities may also see an increase in proactive outreach by wireless providers or tower companies, informing them of what those companies see as the cities' obligations under the new order. However, local governments should take care to consult with their municipal attorneys, state municipal leagues, and possibly state utility commissions to verify these claims before taking any new actions. ;. Cities Can Fight Back While the FCC's vote represents another preemption blow for local governments, cities can fight back against this measure and others like it. NLC and our partners are pursuing administrative, legal, and legislative steps to stop the FCC's overreach. A city, or cities, will likely appeal the FCC's order in a circuit court. Depending on that court's decision, or if there are cases in multiple circuits with differing oLrtcomes, the issue could move as high as the Supreme Court, as in the case of City of Arlington ve FCC. Finally, under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, Congress may choose to overrule the order within 60 legislative (e.g., when Congress is in session) days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register. Use of the Congressional Review Act has gro�vn in popularity in recent years but would still necessitate the building of substantial support on Capitol Hill by cities and their leaders. For more information on small cell technology and how your city can prepare, view NLC's municipal action guide and tips from Next Century Cities. � About the Author:Angelina Panettieri is the Principal �'�`•} Associate for Technology and Communication at the National , "- =-� League of Cities. Folloiver her on twitter at c�AngelinainDC. ;� � https://c itiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takea�vays-for-c ities-from-the-fccs-small-ce ll-pcee... 10/11/2018 Five Takeaways for Cities frotn the FCC's Small Cell Preemption Order—CitiesSpeak Page 7 of 7 Share this: Shars � . � �- � ii iti - _ �` � ,, �, ;.,;,,_� """ :� '�' `-, $�'��"� II tl d �; ; ; , �.' �,; `. 4 , ; *r ;, !,.� �-.d�� (� �C�F��:�!� ieu •w= �.ti.._� ' j�� r' =� -+?• r_ � � , .q � � � ... i' i .�' ..r�� . _ +�ww �.��: �.��'�7a -�sLax�.� _ '��y:�� s-�_�.� FCC Proposes Preemption, Fee Net Neutrality Is Just the Tip of Small Cell Wireless Technology Cap for Local Smal) Cell the Preemption Iceberg in Cities Deployment � � �� JPtiC IE��_� �., !-iOME tiLC ?NFC� Email Address NLC'S HfSTu�i`! ABOUT FOLLOW https://citiesspeak.org/2018/09/26/five-takeaways-for-cities-from-the-fccs-small-cell-pree... 10/11/2018 THE CITY OF Dubuque � AIFA�erlwGh UB E '�� III► Masterpiece on the Mississippi Z°°'�w'2 7A13 2017 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Small Cell, 5G, and Community Health Concerns DATE: October 12, 2018 Public Health Specialist Mary Rose Corrigan has provided information related to Small Cell, 5G and community health concerns. �� Mic ael C. Van Milligen �� MCVM:jh Attachment cc: David Lyons, GDDC Sustainable Innovation Coordinator Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager Randy Gehl, Public Information Office Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer Mary Rose Corrigan, Public Health Specialist Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Dave Ness, Civil Engineer II THE CITY OF DUbUqI�� ----~""' � IUI�A�eMsa�ih �� -�� I.c�v-i�x� �� Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2�''2°l� 2413•2017 TO: Mike Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Mary Rose Corrigan, Public Health Specialist SUBJECT: Small Cell, 5G, and Community Health Concerns DATE: October 11, 2018 Since its inception, one of the biggest concerns with radio frequency (RF) technology has been the potential effects on the human body. These concerns derive from a potential correlation between cellphone technology, and RF/electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation exposure. New cell sites popping up across the country are mainly next- generation structures (known as "small cells") that support existing cell phone service but will eventually accommodate 5G connectivity. While industry experts claim these cell sites are safe, many individuals and a few communities aren't fully convinced. In the field of public health, there is seldom, if ever, the ability to use words like "always" and "never". Instead, "High risk," "Low risk," or "levels of concern" are used. For example, the odds of becoming a lightning strike victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000. Likewise, the efficacy of a vaccine is not 100%. The odds of living a longer, healthier life dramatically increase if seatbelts are used and tobacco avoided. These public health issues and behaviors, as well researched and documented as they are, do not provide absolutes or assure zero risk. The same is true for the issue of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation and enormous amount of research and work that has been done on the issue of RF/EMF/Health. Peer reviewed research is essential when studying the issue to allow for the most scientific and unbiased information. Sources that Show Health Risk Associated with RF Technology • (A-2): World Health Organization (WHO) 2011: The Working Group did not quantitate the risk, however "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." • (A-12): Biolnitiative 2012: A Rationale for Biologically-Based Exposure Standards for Low Electromagnetic Radiation: Found EMF exposure to have multiple health impacts. • (B-4): National Cancer Institute: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk: It has been suggested that radiofreq.uency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results (B-5) (B-6) • (B-7): National Cancer Institute: Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer: "No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs or radiofrequency radiation could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, EMFs in the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot damage DNA or cells directly." • (B-8): Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: "There are still limitations to the published research that preclude a definitive judgment, but the evidence considered overall has not demonstrated any adverse health effects of RF field exposure below internationally accepted guideline levels." Although this list is a fraction of the research, most conclude that the risk to human health is low or very low. The American Cancer Society posts most recent, peer reviewed information https://www.cancer.qov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet (see attached). Studies from Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Environmental Health Studies, Federal Communication Commission and others are included in the review. A literature review also confirms ongoing discussions in portions of the scientific and health community that do not agree with the studies listed or site other studies noting that a finding of "low risk" is not yet warranted. An example would be https�//ehtrust orq/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5q-networks-iot-scientific-overview- human-health-risks/ (see attached). The Need for Onqoinq Research: • (B-2): Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: "Although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk" • (B-9): COSMOS: http://www.thecosmosproLect.or,�,/about-the-studv/ (see attached). What others are doing: • (A-9): A List of Schools and Organizations That Have Taken Action Regarding Wireless Technology (Mostly related to schools and organizations outside of the US) • (A-4): Mill Valley City Ordinance (An example of action taken around the San Fran area to reduce EMF exposure) • (A-10): Parents for Safe Technology (Provides a list of other countries efforts to reduce EMF exposure) The health community generally concedes that study on the impact of RF, EMF and cell phone use should continue as society increases and changes its use of these and related technologies, and that those results need to be incorporated into future planning and regulations at the national level when they are known. It is not helpful to the average citizen to tell them that the "International Agency for Research on Cancer" cannot rule out a connection to health and includes EMF exposure in a very long list of "possibly having a connection to causing cancer" items that include everything from drinking coffee to eating pickled vegetables to being a welder. 2 Current state, national and local policy are based on recommendations from organizations that base their research, study, and conclusion on rigorous scientific methods. Examples include lead and radon exposure. While no level of these elements is safe, there are levels acceptable to result in minimal, if any, health effects. Based on this limited, preliminary analysis and current practice of utilizing multiple federal and national agency recommehdations for policy development, I do not find reason to disagree with the conclusions of the existing Federal Agencies on this matter. However, I will continue to be informed in this area and as new studies, or information becomes available I will bring them to your and the Council's attention for discussion and action. MRC/Ih cc Dave Ness, Traffic Engineer Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager 3 � � � � � � -� # ` EMF Saftey Network: A-1 Public Blog http://emfsafetynetwork.org World Health Organization (WHO): A-2 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media- Peer Reviewed Journal Article centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E,pdf Eluxe Magazine: Frightening Frequencies: The Dangers of 5G& What You Can Do A-3 About Them: Nonscientific Journal Article https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/da ngers-of-5g/ Mill Valley City Ordinance: A-4 http://cityofmillvalley.granicus.com/Met City Ordinance aViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1290& meta id=59943 Newsweek: Radiation From Cellphones, W!-FI, !s Hurting the Birds And The Beeds; A-5 5G May Make !t Worse: News Article https://www.newsweek.com/migratory- birds-bee-navigation-5g-technology- electromagnetic-radiation-934830 - CBS: SG Service !s Coming And So Are Health Concerns Over The Towers That A-6 Supportlt: NewsArticle https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5g- networl<-cel I-towers-raise-health- ConsumerWatch:5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Overlmpacts on Health: A-7 https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/ News Article 01/25/consumerwatch-5g-cellphone- towers-signal-renewed-concerns-over- impacts-on-health/ Microwave Radiation Coming to a Lamppost Near You: A-8 https://www.westonaprice.org/health- News Article topics/environmental-toxins/microwave- radiation-coming-lamppost-near/ A List of Schools and Organizations That Have Taken Action Regarding Wireless Technology: A-9 List http://wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/ 2/3042232/schools_and_organizations_ wifi.pdf Parents for Safe Technology: A-10 http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.or g/worldwide-countries-taking- List action.html International Appeal:Stop SG on earth and in Space: A-11 Review https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the- appeal/. Biolnitiative 2012:A Rationale for Biologically-Based Exposure Standadrds A-12 Peer Review Report for Low Electromagnetic Radiation: http://www.bioinitiative.org Taking Back Our Power: Our Wireless . Tech Is Unsafe, and These 5 US Government Agencies Have Tried to A-13 Warn Us : News Article ttps://takebackyourpower.net/5-us- government-agencies-have-tried-to-warn us-about-wireless-harm/ Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Book A-14 Presumably Regulates: http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf � � Mission to "educate and empower people by providing science and solutions to reduce EMFs to improve lives, achieve public policy change, and obtain environmental justice." •From May 24-31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries met at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. •The Group evaluated available literature on the following exposure categories: occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones. •Magazine article reports on the health concerns reported to be associated with low-level RFR exposure •The article sites the following study for evidence (could not find a full copy of study to review): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/5004100 8X05003406?v i a%3 D i h u b •Sept. 6 2018:,Mill Valley (near San Fran area), voted to immediately block deployments of small-cell 5G wireless towers in the city's residential areas based on community member concerns for more reaserch on the health affects this technology may have •This ordinance is similar to recent regulations enacted in San Anselmo and Ross. Reports on a recent anazlysis conducted by Eklipse that aims to confirm that electromagnetic radiation from power lines and cell towers can disorientate birds and insects and destroy plant health. Reports on Maryland residents opinion on cell towers in her neighborhood Reports on opinions toward cell towers going up in Californa communities Reports on health risks associated with cell towers Provides a list of schools and organizations that have taken some form of action to reduce the risk of EMF in their area Provides a list of other countries efforts to reduce exposure to EMF Warns against the use of 5G technology Reports the findings of a Working Group assessing 1800 studies related to EMF exposure and health Warns the use of 5G technology Notes the corruption of agencies (specifically the FCC) that mask concerns such as health for their own financial profit � � •Website includes multiple peer-reviewed articles and resources for readers looking for more information on EMF technologies •Their EMF defitnion: "EMF pollution includes electric and magnetic fields, wireless radiation and dirty electricity which is radiation on electric lines •The Working Group did not quantitate the risk, however "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 26 classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer rislc." (specificailly glioma) � •Evidence was limited and inadequate to draw conclusions for connections to cancers. Evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures was similarly judged inadequateone •One study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period). The article states that "low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including: DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer) oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature aging) disruption of . cell metabolism increased blood-brain barrier permeability melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks) disruption of brain glucose metabolism generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases) The new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners." Cities such as these have decided that more research is needed before allowing the development of small-cell 5G wireless towers in the communties. •Article also sites Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees: (http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public- information/final_mobile_towers_report.pdf) •Article also sites Radio WavesAffecting Migrating Birds: https://www.news24.com/Green/News/Radio-waves-affect-migrating-birds- 20140507 •Article overall states there is little ongoing research on the topic and more is needed to make any conclusion Article sites National Cancer Institue by saying: According to the National Cancer Institute, "A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks... but most studies have found no association." •"According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the World Health Organization,the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy ernitted by cellphones. •Likewise, the FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis and its standards for RF exposure are based on recomrnended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. That's why the FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are "safe." •The FCC also sets exposure limits for cell site antennas that transmit signals to phones •A pilot study on six firefighters at a station with cell towers in California and found the firefighters reported negative health symptoms related to the cell towers, including: problems with memory, intermittent confusion, and weakness. "Abnormal brain function" was also found in brain scans of all 6 of these firefighters - as a result, fire stations became exampt from the bill, rnaking them •"The World Health Organization's International Agen�cy for Research on Cancer classified the microwave radiation from all wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen in 2011. In 2016, the U.S. National Toxicology Program released results of the world's largest, gold-standard study on wireless health risks (conducted on rats, which are the preferred animal model for studies of carcinogenicity in humans), finding cancer in 5.5 percent of the exposed group and no cancer in the control group.° •"Studies already show a substantially increased prevalence of neurobehavioral symptoms and cancer in populations living less than five hundred meters from current mobile phone base stations". Majority of the work has been done outside of the US Many countries "have set RF exposure limits 100 to 10,000 times lessthan the USA. They recognize that there can be non-thermal biological effects from wireless radiation." Lists the reported affects that EMF can have on children and adults The report finds multiple bioeffects and adverse health effects resulting from exposure to EMF (http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp- content/uploads/pdfs/section_1_table_1_2012.pdf) •Pulls quotes from the following organzations that that warn against 5g tech: EPA (1993, 2002); FDA (1993); NIOSH (1994); Amateur Radio Relay League Bio-Effects Committee (1994); The US Department of Interior (2014) •The quotes focus on the fact the FCC regulations are focused on thermally-based and do not look at other forms of exposure to EMF •Sites many of the research sources listed above •Claims that this amount of evidence is not enough to pursade "industry and captured agency" � o � � � Mentioned by contact: Carla Kaufman Mentioned by contact: Carla Kaufman Mentioned by contact: Carla Kaufman Mentioned by contact: Carla Kaufman Mentioned by contact: Hannah Bildstein Mentioned by contact: Hannah Bildstein Mentioned by contacts: Hannah Bildstein and Cynthia Cechota Mentioned by contact: Hannah Bildstein Mentioned by contact: Katie Blair Mentioned by contact: Katie Blair Mentioned by contact: Jim Earles Mentioned by contact: BG Mentioned by contact: BG Mentioned by contact: BG 10Ii112018 Gell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet-Na�lonal Cancer Inslilute �� NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems? There are three main reasons why people are concemed that cell phones (also known as "mobile" or "wireless" telephones) might have [he potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems: • Cell phones emit radiofrequenry energy(radio waves), a form of non-ionizing radiation, from their antennas. Tissues nearest m the antenna can absorb this energy. • The number of cell phone users has Increased rapidly.As of December 2014, there were more than 327.5 million cell phone subscribers in the Unired States, acmrdiny to the Cellular Telemmmunications and Internet Association. This is a nearly[hreefold increase from the 170 million users in 2000. Globally, [he number of subscriptions is es[imated by the International Telemmmunications Union ro be 5 billion. • Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day,the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. However, improvements in cell phone technology have resulted in devices that have lower power outputs than eartier models. The NC[ fact sheet Bectromagnetic Fields and Cancer indudes informaCion on wireless lo�al area networks (commonly known as Wi-Fi), cell phone base stations, and mrdless relephones. What is radiofrequency energy and how does it affect the body? Radiofrequency energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two rypes: ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., radiofrequency and ex[remely low frequency, or power frequen�y). ElecVomagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and frequency, which is che number of cydes of a wave that pass a reference point per semnd. Electromagnetic frequencies are described in uni[s called hertz(Hz). The enerqy of electromagnetic radiation is derermined by its frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequenry, and therefore high energy,whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetir_ Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequenry eneryy. More information a6out ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page. The frequency of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation ranges from 30 kilohertz (30 kHz, or 30,000 Hz) to 300 gigaher[z (300 GHz, or 300 billion Hz), Electromagnetic fields in the radiofrequency range are used for telemmmunica[ions applications, induding cell phones, televisions, and radio transmissions.The human 6ody absorbs energy from devices that emit radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. The dose of the absorbed energy is estimated usiny a measure called the specific absorp[ion rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per kilogram of bodyweiqht. Mlps llwww.cancer.gov�aboul-canrerlcauses-preventioNrisWratllationlcell-phones-facbsheet 1I10 10111I2018 Cell P�ones antl GancerRlsk Fad Sheei-NaOonalCancerins�iNle Exposure ro ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known m increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiatlon increases cancer risk (1�. The only consisrenqy recognized 6iological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effec[of radiofrequency enerqy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of[he body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other ciearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been sugges[ed that radiofrequency energy miyht affect glucose me[abolism, 6ut two small studies that examined brain glucose me[a6olism after use of a cell phone showed imm�sistent resul[s.Whereas one study showed inaeased glumse metabolism in the reqion of the brain dose m the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study(3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another scudy inves[igated whether exposure ro the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies nored that the resWts are preiiminary and tha[ possible health outmmes from changes in glumse meta6olism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not unmmmon in experimental s[udies of the biologlcal effects of radiofrequency elec[romagnetic radiation (5). Some con[ri6uting facrors indude assumptions used [o estimate doses, failure to mnsider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investiga[ors to exposure s[atus. How is racEiofrequency energy exposure m�asured in epidemiologic studies? Epidemiologic studies use informa[ion from several sources, induding questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers. Dlrect measurements are not yet possi6le outside of a laborarory setting. Estimates take inro account the following: • How "regularly' study participancs use cell phones (the number of calls per week or month) � The age and the year when study participants first used a cell phone and the age and [he year of last use (allows calculation of[he duration of use and time since the start of use) • The average number of cell phone calls per day, wezk, or month (frequency) • The average length of a typical cell phone call • The [otal hours of lifetime use, calculaced from the length of rypical call [imes, the frequency of use, and the dura[ion of use Whai has research shown abaui the possible cancer-�ausing effects of radiofrequency energy? Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to can�er. I[s only consistenNy observed bioloqical effect in humans is tissue hea[ing. In animal studies, it has not 6een found ro hitps-,�Iwvrv�.cance[govlabou6canceNcausespreventioNrisklratlialionlcelLphones-(ac4shee� �� t0I1112018 Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheel-National Cancer Institule cause cancer or to enhance the cancervcausing effects of known chemi[al carcinogens (6-8). The Natlonal Toxicology Program (NTPj, a federal interagency pro9ram headquar[ered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (MEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Heal[h (NIH), recently mmple[ed a series of large-scale swdies in rodents of exposure to radiofrequency enerqy(the type used in cell phones). This investigation was mnduc[ed in highly specialized labs that can specify and mnVol sources of radiation and measure their effects. In February 2018, [wo draf[ technical repor[s summarizing [he findings were made available in advance of Ihe Pormal peervreview process in March 2018. Peer review is a critical mmponent of the scientific process to ensure [ha[ research findings are meaningful, accurace, and appropriately interpreted. NU awaits che final peer-reviewed reports from the MP so that they may be mnsidered for summary indusion in this fact sheeC along with the existiny 6ody of peervreviewed evidence from human and animal studies.The U.S Food and Drug Adminisiraiion (FDA) issued a s[a[ement on the NTP reports stating they"believe the current safery limi[s for cell phones are accep[able for protecting the public heal[h." FDA and the Federal Communica[ions Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies and FDA originally nominated this topic for study by NTP. Researchers have carried out several rypes of epidemiologic studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignan[ (cancerous) brain tumors, wch as gliomas, as well as beniyn (noncancerous) tumors, such as acous[ic neuromas (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing), most meningiomas (tumors in the meninges, mem6ranes ehat cover and prorect the brain and spinal mrd), and parotid gland wmors (tumors in the salivary glands) (9). [n one type of study, calted a case-control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. [n another rype of study, called a mhort study,a large qroup of people who do no[have cancer at study entry is followed over eime and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn't use cell phones is compared Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if[he rates oF cancer changed in large popula[ions during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically.7hese s[udies have not shown dear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some statis[ically significant associations for certain subgroups of people. ihree large epidemiologic studies have examinetl the possible association between cell phone use and cancer: Interphone, a case-control study;the Danish Study, a cohort study; antl the Million Women Study, another mhart s[udy. • [n[erphone How the study was done: This is the larges[ health-related case-mnttol study o!cell phone use and the risk of head and neck tumors. [t was mndutted by a consor[ium of researchers from 13 countries. The data came from questionnaires [ha[were completed by smdy participan[s. What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no s[atisticatly significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers reiared m higher amoun[s of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most ro[al time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding incondusive because they Felt thac the amoun[ of use reported 6Y some respondencs Mipsllwww.cancecgovlabouFcancerlcauses-prevenlionlnslUrotliallon/cell-phones-facPsheel 3I10 10It V2�18 Cell Phones antl Cancer Risk Facl Sbeel-Nalional Wncer Ins�iWte was unlikely and 6ecause the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared ro have a slighNy reduced risk of brain cancer mmpared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (5,1q11).Another recent analysis from this study found no relationship be[ween brain tumor bcations and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency energy from ceIl phones (12), • Danish Study How the study was done: This cohort study, conducred in Denmark, linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry. What the study showed: No association was observed be[ween cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or amustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years (13-15). • Million Women Study How the study was done: This prospective mhor[study conducred in [he United Kingdom used data o6tained from questionnaires thatwere [omplered 6y study participants. What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associa[ed with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or nomcen[ral nervous sysCem tumors.Althouqh the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of amustic neuroma (�5), [his associa[ion disappeared after addi[ional follow-up of the cohort (77). In addition m these three large studies, other, smaller epidemiologic studies have looked for associations between ceil phone use and cancec These indude: • Two NCI-sponsored c�se-control studies, each mnducred in multiple U.S.academic medical centers or hospitals beTween 1994 and 1998, that used data from questionnaires (t8) or mmputer-assisted personal inrerviews(19). Nei[her study showed a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of glioma, meningioma, oramustic neuroma. • The CERENAT study, another case-control smdy conducted in multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in faw-to-face interviews usiny standardized questionnaires (20).This study found no assoUation for either gliomas or meningiomas when comparing regular cell phone users wi[h nomusers. However, [he heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and meningiomas. • A pooled analysis of two case-control studies conducred in Sweden that reported statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amoun[of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before age 20 (21). • Ano[her case-controi study in Sweden, pa« of the Interphone pooled s[udies, did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among long-term cell phone users 6etween the ages of 20 and 69 (22). • The CEFALO study, an international case-con[rol study of children diagnosed with brain cancer be[ween ages 7 and 19, which found no relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer (23). [nvestigators have also<onducted analyses of incidence Vends[o determine whether the incidenw of brain or other cancers has changed during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These indude: htlps.11wwrv.cance[govlabou4cancer/caoses-preventionlnsklradlallonlcell-phones-facbsheel 4I10 10/11/2018 Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet-National Cancer Institute • An analysis of data from NCI`s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results(SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States.This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time (24). • An analysis of incidence data from Denmark, Finiand, Norway, and Sweden for the period 1974-2008 similarly revealed no increase in age-adjusted incidence of brain tumors(25). • A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008.The results were compatible with no increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic studies.The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out but was unlikely.The.highly increased risks reported in the Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed glioma rates in the Nordic countries(26). • A 2012 study by NCI researchers (27) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the smail risks reported in the Interphone study(11) and the greatly inereased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (21).The observed U.S. rates showed no increase, but a small increased risk among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study could not be ruled out.The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study.These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends. hy are the findin � fr� �ff�r� t s��a ie� f cell h�ne use an cancer risk inc n�istent? A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks, but most studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies include the following: � Recall bias,which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants.It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little. • Inaccurate reporting,which can happen when people saythat something has happened more or less often than it aetually did. People may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period. • Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly diffieult to study,for example, because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired,which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore,for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risklradiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet 5/10 t01112018 Gell Phones antl Cancer Risk Facl Sheel�Nalional Cancer Ins�itNe • Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely [han healchy people (known as mntrols)m enroll in a research study. AIs0. mntrols who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study tham m�crols who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone s[udy reported participa[ion rates of 78 percent for meninqioma patien[s (range 56-92 percent for the individual studies), 64 percent for glioma patients (ranqe 36-92 percent), and 53 percent for mntrol subjec[s (range 42-74 percent) (11). • Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluared radiofrequenry energy exposure from analog cell phones. However, most cell phones mday use digital technology, which operates aC a different hequency and a lower power level [han analog phones. Digi[al cell phones have been in use for more than a decade in the United Sta[es, and cellular technology continues to change (9). Texcing, for example, has become a popular way of using a cell phone m communicare that does not require bringing the phone dose ro the he�d. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may decrease radiofrequency energy exposure to[he head and brain. Wha! do expert �rganizrtic�ns cr,riclucle about the cancer e'isk from cell phon� use? In 2011, the In[erna[ional Ayenry for Research on Cancer(IARC), a component of[he World Heal[h Organization, appoinced an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group dassified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic ro humans," based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofreyuency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic s[udies (5). The Working Group indicated [hat, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, [he findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be exduded. The Working Group noted that any interpre[a[ion of[he evidence should also mnsider that [he o65erved associa[ions could reflect chance, bias, or confounding ra[her than an underiying causal effecC [n addition, the Working Group sta[ed that the investigation of risk of cancer of the brain associated with celi phone use poses complex methodologi< challenges in [he conduct of the research and in the analysis and inrerpre[ation of findings. The American Cancer Soci�ry(ACS) s[ates tha[the IARC dassification means that[here could be some cancer risk associated wiCh radlofrequency energy, but the evidence is not strong enough to be mnsidered causal and needs to be investiga[ed further. Individuals who are concemed about radiofrequency energy exposure can limit their exposure, induding using an ear piere and limiting cell phone use, particularlyamong children. The National Ins[i[u[e of Environmental Heal[h Scienczs (NIEHS) s[ates that the weigh[ ofthe current scien[ific evidence has no[condusively linked cell phone use with any adverse heal[h problems, but more research is needed. The U.S Food and Drug Administra[ion (FDA) notes thaC studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and [hat the majoriry of human epidemiologic studies have failed ro show a relationship 6etween exposure to radiofrequen<y energy from <ell phones and health problems, The U.S Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states chat no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use causes cancer. Mlpsl�wem�.cancerqovlaboubcanre0causes-prevenlioNrisUratlialionlcell-phones-facPSM1eeI 6I10 10/1V2018 CeII Phones antl Cance�Risk Facf S�eeL Natlonal Cancer InsllWte The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mndudes [hat no scien[ific evidence esta6lishes a causai link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. In 2015 Ihe European Commisslon Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Iden[ified Health Risks mnduded that, overalf, che epidemiologic s[udies on cell phone radiofrequency elecVomaqnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and ned< region (i). The Committee also sta[ed that epidemiologic s[udies do not indicare increased risk Por o[her malignan[diseases, indudinq childhood cancer (t). What studies are under way that will heip further our understanding of khe possible health effects of cell phone use? A larqe prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS, has enrolled approximately 290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow them for 20 to 30 years. Participan[s in COSMOS will mmple[e a questionnaire about their health, lifesryle, and current and past cell phone use.This informa[ion will be supplemented with information from heal[h remrds and cell phone records. The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following che participants for a ranqe of heal[h effects over many decades. Researchers will need to determine whether parcicipants who leave the study are somehow different from those who remain throughout the follow-up period. AI[houqh recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that link participants ro their cell phone remrds, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible ro know who is using the listed cell phone or whe[her that individual also places calls using other cell phones.7o a lesser extent, it is not dear whether mulciple users of a single phone will be represented on a single phone mmpany acmunc. Do children have a higher risk of developing car�cer due [o cell phone use than adults? There are [heoretical considerations as to why ihe possible risk should be investigated separa[ely in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure ro the field of radiofreyuency radiation tha[is emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure [han adults do. Thus far, the da[a from s[udies in children wich cancer do noc support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case-control s[udy called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland.The study induded chiidren who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and Z008,when eheir ages ranged from 7 to 19. Researchers did not find an associa[ion between cell phone use and brain [umor risk ei[her by time since iniCia[ion of use, amo�mt of use, or by the location of the [umor(23). Several studies that will provide more information are under way. Researchers from the Cenve for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another intema[ional case-mn[rol s[udy—Mobi-Kids—[hat will indude 2000 yuung people (aged 10-24 years)with newly diagnosed brain wmors and 4000 healthy young hllps I/w�wtcancecgov�aboN-cancerlcauses-preventioNrishlratliatioNcell-phones-fac4sheet ]I10 10I11R018 Cell P�ones antl Cancer Risk Fad Shee�-Nalional Cancer InsliWte people.The qoal of che smdy is [o leam more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors. Results are expected in 2018. What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure co radiofrec��aency energy? The FDA has suggested some s[eps tha[mncerned cell phone users can take to reduce their exposure [o radiofrequenry energy(28): • Reserve the use of cell phones for shorrer conversations or for times when a landline phone is not available. • Use a device with hands-free [echnology, such as wired headsets, which place more distance between the phone and the head of the user. Hands-free kits reduce the amount of radiofrequenry energy exposure to the head because [he antenna, which is the source of energy, is not placed against ehe head. Exposures dedine dramatically when rell phones are used hands-free. Where can i find rriorc ini`ortt�at6on about ra�lioPretyuency er�ergy troc� rriy cell ph�ne? The FCC provides Information abaut the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within [he las[ i [0 2 years.The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by [he head oP a cell phone user(29). Consumers can access this information using the phone's FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCCs ID search form, �low common is Urain cancer? Has the incidence of brain cancer changed oyer time^ Brain cancer incidence and mortality (death) rates have changed little in the pas[decade. In the United States, 23,770 new diagnoses and 16,050 dea[hs from brain and other central nervous system cancers are estimated for 2016. , The 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2005 [hrough 2011 was 35 percent (30). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with [he survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer. The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age. From 2008 throuqh 2012, [here were fewer than 5 brain cancer cases for every 100,000 people in the United States under age 65, compared with approximately 19 cases for every 100,000 people in [he Uni[ed S[ates who were ages 65 or older(30). Selected V'teferences 1. SCENIHR. 2075. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Heal[h Risks Potentia� health effects of exposure m e�ecVomagnetic fields (EMF): h[[p://ec,europa.eu/health/scien[iFc_mmmi[cees/emerqing�docs/scenlhr_o 041.pdf, accessed Augus[ 15, 20�5. Mipsllvrvrvu.cance[govlaboubcancedcauses-preventiaNrisk/ratlia�ionlcelLphones�fac45�eet BHO 10I112018 Cell Phones antl Ganwr Risk Fact S�ee�-National Cancer InsliNle 2. Voll<ow ND,Tomasi D,Wang GJ, et aL Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose me[abolism.JAMA 2011; 305(8):808-813. [Pu6Med Abs[rac[] 3. Kwon M5, Vorobyev V, Kannaia 5, et al. GSM mobile phone radiation suppresses brain glumse metabolism. Journal of Cerebrol Blood Flow ond Metobolism 2011; 31(12j229330L [PubMed Abstrac[] 4. Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, KSnnala 5, et al. No effects of short-term GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured usinq positron emission mmography. Bioelectromogne[ia 2012; 33(3)247-56. [PubMed Abstrac[] 5. [nternational Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing R�diation, Port 2 RndloJrepuenry Elearomugne[ic Fields. Lyon, France: IARC: 2073. IARC monographs on [he evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102. 6. Hirose H, Suhara T, Kaji N, et aL Mobile phone 6ase station radiation does not affect neoplastic [ransformation in BALB�3T3 cells. Bioelectromagne[ics 2008; 29(i)55-64. [PubMed Absttact] 7. Oberto G, Rolfo K, Yu P, et aL Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz pulsed 900 MHz electromagne[ic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice. Radin[ion Research 2007; 168(3)316-326. [PubMed Abscract] 8. 2ook BC, Simmens SJ.The effects of pulsed 860 MHz radiofrequency radia[ion on the promotion of neurogenic [umors in ra[s. Radintion Research 2006; 165(5):608-61 i [PubMed Abs[rac[] 9. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, et al. Epidemiology of health effe<ts of radiofrequency exposure. Environmenfal Heolfh Perspectives2004; 112(17):1741-1754. [PubMed Abs[rac[] 10. Wrdis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al. The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods,and description of the study population. Europeon Journal of Epidemiology2007; 22(9):647-664. [PubMed A6stract] 1 L The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE intemational case-con[rol study.Intemotional Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 39(3):675-694. [PubMed AbSCraCt� 12. Larjavaara 5, SchuzJ, Swerdlow A, et aL Location of gliomas in reta[ion ro mo6ile relephone use: a case- case and case-specular analysis.American Journol of Epidemiology 2011; 174(i)2-1 L [PubMed Abstrac[J 13.Johansen C, BoiceJ Jr, MCLaughlin J, Olsen J. Cellular telephones and cancer. a nationwide mhort study in Denmark.Joumplo/the Nationol Cnncerfnstitute 2001; 93(3)203-207. [PubMed A6strac[] 14, SchuzJ,Jambsen R, Olsen JH, ei aL Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: updare of a nationwide Danish cohort.)oumol of[6e Nationol Concerinstimte 2006; 98(23):1707-1713. [Pu6Med Abstract] 15. Frei P, Poulsen AH,Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of 6rain tumourr update of Danish cohort s[udy. Bri[ish MedicolJourna12011; 343:d6387. [PubMed Abstract] 16. Benson V5, Pirie K, SchOzJ, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other can<ers: Prospective sNdy, fn[ernationolJoumal of Epidemiology 2013; 42(3): 792-802. [PubMed Abs[ract� 17. Benson V5, Pirie K, SchuzJ, et al.Au[hors' response to: the case of amustic neuroma: comment on mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers. fnternationnlJoumol of Epidemiology 2014; 43�1�275. doi: 10.1093�ije/dy[186. 18. Musca[)E, Malkin MG,Thompson 5, et al. Handheld cellular relephone use and risk of brain cancer.JAMA 2000; 284(23)3001-300Z [PubMed AbsVact] 19. Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et aL Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 2001; 344(2)�79-86. [Pu�Med Abs[rac[� hl�ps:l/wiw�.cancecgovlabou6cancedCaus¢s-preven�ioNrisklradialionlcell-phones-tac65h¢¢� 9I10 10I11I2018 Cell Phones antl Cancer Risk Fact Sheet-Na�ional Cancer InstiW�e 20. Coureau 6, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, et al. Mobile phone use and brain wmours in [he CERENAT case-mntrol study. Ocmpational nnd Environmentol Medicine 2014; 71(7):514-522. �PiibMed AbsCract] 21. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-wntrol studies on malignant brain tumours and [he use of mobile and mrdless phones induding living and deceased subjects. In[ernational)ournol of Onmlogy 2011; 3S(5):1465-1474. [Pu6Med Abs[ract] 22. Ltlnn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk.AmericanJoumnl of EpidemioPogy2005; 161(6):526-535. [PubMed Abstrac[J 23. Aydin D, Feych[ing M, SchuzJ, e[ al. Mobile phone use and brain [umors in children and adolesren[s: a mWticenter case-mntrol study.Joumol o/[he Nationol Cancerfnstitute 2011; 103(16):1264-1276. [PubMed Abstract] 24. Inskip PD, Hoover RN, Devesa S5. Brain cancer incidence[rends in rela[ion to cellular telephone use in the Uni[ed States. Neuro-Onrology2010; 12(11):1147-i15L [PubMed Abstract� 25. Deltour I,Johansen C, Auvinen A, et al.Time trends in brain [umor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974-2003.Journal of[he Nntionol Concerinstitute 2�09; 101(24):1721-V24. [PubMed Abstracc] 26. Del[our I, Awinen A, Feychting M, et al. Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in [he Nordic countries 1979-2008: consistenry check. Epidemlology 2012; 23(2)301-30Z [PubMed AbsUac[� 27. Lietle MP, Rajaraman P, Curtis RE, et al. Mobile phone use and glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States. B�ifish Mediml Journal 2012; 344:e1147. [PubMed Absvac[] 28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radia[ion-Emit[ing ProducK�. Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. Silver Spring, MD. RetrievedJune 1S, 2012. 29. U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). FCC Encydopedia�. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)for CellularTelephones, RetrievedJune 18, 2012. 30. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer5mtis[ics Review, 1975-2072, Na[ional Cancer Ins[i[u[e. Be[hesda, MD. Re[rieved January 11, 2016. Related Resources Electromagne[ic Fields and Cancer Causes and Preven[ion Reviewed: February 16, 2018 (f you would like to rep�oduce some or all of Chis mnrent, see Reuse of NCI fnformatian/or guldance about copyright and permissions. !n the case of permitted digital�eproduction, please credit the Narionnl Cnncer Instimte as the source and link [o [he original NQ producr using [he original producCs[itle; e.g, "Cell Phones nnd Cancer Risk wns originalty published by the No[ional Cancer Ins[itu[e." Mtpsllw�vw.cancacgov�aboW-cance0ceusea-preven�ionlfislUratllelloNcell-phones-tacFsheet 10H0 to111R01B Envimnmenlal Heal�h TmsISG antl�he IOT Scientific Overview of Human Heallh Risks-Emimnmenlal Heaph Tmsl a ENVIFONMENTAL„ � HEALTIi iPUST � VeNBHUUPOVluV2KUGURO_quiG_HRSOVSV54aPeVUDDykOurVBFwi]SEMH4sN6N2p-62yLv-KiKOgdX86E8Sqn5VSObkLnSeDAXGqy61V%3D) s��rrn i '� ��. �onete(Https://Eh[mstOrg/�onate/) A60UT(HTTPS://EHTRUSTORG/ABOUT/) XEYISSUES(HTTPS:tlEHiRUSLORGMEY-ISSUES/) POLICV(HTTPS:dEHTRUStORG/POLICV/) I SGENCE�HTTPS://EHTRUST.ORG/SQENCEQ EOUCATEVOUPSELF(HTfG5:0EHTRUSLOPGITAKE-ACTION/EOUCATE-YOOPSELF/) TAKEACTION(HTfPS:pEHTROSTORG/TAKEACTION/) RESOUflCESTOSHARE(HTTFS'./IEHTRUSTORGIRESOURCES�TO-SH/REI) MEDIA 8 PIIBLICATIONS(HTTPS:OEHTRUStORGIDU6UCATI0N5/) SG And The IOT: Scientific Overview Of Human Health Risks (/.ifaG2book} (/FM�itter) (iUyooillo plusl h�uma�Feal�naaks�62F5YJ� 5Gd20and°20in� 2JI0T63A�_OSaen�lcs�20�OvrvEwo�OoIPCH�an%�OHaItM1�b2DBisks)��t�ciant�o-overview 5G is Ne term usetl to tlescnbe t�e next-gene2bon of mabile networks beyoncJ the 4G LTE mobile networks commonly used mday SG I,Intended to be the lechnology thatallows tl�e Internet of Thinqs QOT) to exist and tieall intemet connected tlevices toge[her. Click here to see the latest science an 5G millimeter waves _ �nicPsvrenrc�stor9isde�rn�,esear�n-o�s��o-neaimi) �,� ,;�, Use Quota Time �� Currently Ihere is no standam for SG nehvoRs in place and it will�e a combina�ionofavaiieryoffreyuenciesanomotlulations.lnc�usuyis q��siomisstere ineuseoi qaires q�ota Ome..Pou may s:an a N �evelapinaexactlywh�tSGwillbeasthestantlartlhasnotbeenset mmwesessionioviawin�ss�ixanaomsa��n�ne.amefaie9o�y. yer.tl is assumetl�hat SG ne�worY,s will not�ecome mmmercialty up�: aveilable unul 2020 but several ciiies are roll�ing oW 5G as test areas --- noev Vetlzon(hups//wtvr com/20�7/OJ22/verizon-[o-tcr5gtin-1 l- cilies-�ncludmy-weshingrontltQand Sptlm (M�ps7/www.radlomagonline com/irends/amitlentifies+�ore-Sg��est- ci�ies)have announced"test clties"for 56 which Inclutle Sacramemo,Washington DQ Atlanta,Oallas,Mlami and New York. A first glance at US government websires such as the C�C and EPA could lead you m believe that�his radiation is safe Ve[over 240 scientis�s and doc�ors fmm 41 nations who have publishetl research In the fieltl have eppealetl (hupsl/w�wr researcnga�eneVpublice�iun/242533689_in[ernatianaUlppeaLSe:erust_ call_ta�orotec6on_Fromnory r�nizing�lecGomagnertc_fiel�exposureJ m the United Nallons calling for urgent ac�ion�o reduce these ever gmwing wireless exposures and they wmle(hups//enimsi org/keY-�=sues/celb ohone_rmieless/emhscientiSFappeal-[dvisors-calFino�alonum- Sg,Q Ihe FCC for a moramdum on ihe rolFout of SG citing tBe senous risks t�at�o human healih and ihe envimnment. h��Oslle��msl.orglkey-issueslcelbpM1oneswirelessl5q�neiwoM1s-lobscienli�o-overview-humao-heallRrisksl ll8 10/11/2018 Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT:Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks-Environmental Health Trust Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G,3G and 4G—in use today with our cell phones,computers and wearable tech—creates radiofrequency exposures which poses a serious health risk to humans,animals and the environment.Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first to. ensure the public and environment are protected. However,instead of prudent public health measures to ensure the public's safety,governments such as the United States are quickly rolling out 5G networks in neighborhoods and are enacting various state and federal regulations to"streamline"and fasttrack the rollout.These regulations will end the ability of communities to halt�nd be a part of the decision making process in this massive 5G infrastructure buildout. Wireless company documents clearly state(https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and- Seminars/20171205/Documents/S3_Christer_Tornevik.pd fl that 5G will increase the levels of RF radiation in the vicinity of the antennas. Many countries such as China,India,Poland,Russia,Italy and Switzerland have far more protective and stricter radiation limits which will not allow the deployment of 5G as the increased 5G radiation would exceed their limits.These countries are creating roadblocks (https://www.telecompaper.com/news/itu-says-strict-electromagnetic-radiation-exposure-limits-may-negatively-impact-5g-roll-out-1250861)to the 5G rollout and industry has launched large scale efforts to loosen limits. Click Here For EHT's Scientific FactSheets On 5G (Https://Ehtrust.Org/Small-Cells-Mini-Cell-Towers-Health- Letters-Sci entists-Health-Risk-5g/) Click here to see the latest science on 5G millimeter waves. (https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/) THOUSANDS OF MINI CELL TOWERS TO BE BUILT IN FRONT OF HOMES 5G will require the buildout of literally hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in neighborhoods,cities and towns.A cellular small cell or other transmitter wlll be placed every two to ten homes according to estimates.The purpose of this massive infrastructure build out of small cells, distributed antennae systems and microcells is to increase range ancl capacity in populated urban areas and prepare for the future 5G rollout 5G frequencies will utilize higher frequencies that do not travel as far as the lower frequencies. US state and federal governments are moving forth regulations which would make the right of way in front of homes as available sites for 5G transmitters—without consent of the property owners.In response,communities are protestiny en mass as they do not want these transmitters built in front of their homes�nd communities want to be�ble to regulate the placement on right of ways. Some municipalities are taking the case to the courts with litigation.(http://delgazette.com/news/53947/city joins-litigation-against-state-law) 5G WILL USE HIGHER ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCIES 5G will utilize multiple frequencies from those currently in use for cell phones and wireless to higher millimeter frequencies. Today's cellular and Wi-Fi networks rely on microwaves—a type of electromagnetic radiation utilizing frequencies up to 6 gigahertz(GHz)in order to wirelessly transmit voice or data.However,5G applications(http://www.pcworld.com/article/2940792/5g-networks-look-to-new-frequencies-to- deliver-gigabit-speeds.html)will require unlocking of new spectrum bands in higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves—to allow ultra-high rates of data to be transmitted in the same amount of time as compared with previous deployments of microwave radiation. : +Click here to read about the difference between 1 G,2G,3G and 4G MILLIMETER AND SUBMILLIMETER WAVES ARE BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE Current investigations of wireless frequencies in the millimeter and submillimeter range confirm that these waves interact directly with human skin,specifically the sweat glands.Dr.Ben-Ishai of the Department of Physics,Hebrew University,Israel recently detailed how human sweat ducts act like an array of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths. MECHANISM OF ACTION IS PROVEN Research already indicates serious adverse effects from the wireless modalities in use today.Research studies from the Dielectric Spectroscopy Laboratory of the Department of Applied Physics,Hebrew University of Jerusalem,headed by Dr.Yuri Feldman,indicate that 5Gs millimeter�nd submillimeter waves will uniquely interact with human skin and lead to preferential layer absorption.The number of sweat ducts within human https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientiflc-overview-human-health-risks/ 2/8 10I112018 Envimnmenlal HeaIN Tmst SG and iM1e IOT Scien�ifc Overview of Human Heallh Risks-Envimnmen(al Heallh Tmsl skin varies tmm two million�o fourmillion. Rephcated peer reseamh of these�iological effccts in la�aratory reseemh nes been contlucteU mSemationallV �nd sc�en�ists consltlei ihis mech2nlsm oF aciion well proven(See tlooumen(a�ion furihp�tlown on�his webpage) SG FREQUENCIES ARE USED IN WEAPONS Far years,the US-,Russian and Chlnete defense agencies(htlpAjnlwp.defense.gov/Par�als/50/Oocuments/PoW r�Non- LethaLWezpons/HEAPpdf)have been developing weapons tlia[rety on ihe capabibty of this electmmegnetic(requeney�ange ro intluee unpleasenl buming sensatbns on[he skin as alorm of cmwtl contml.Millimete�waves are milized by Ihe US Army hi emwtl Ois^pe�sal guns calletl Active Denial Syst2ms(hup/lnlwp.de�ense.gov/A7ouVRequently-nsketl-questions/Active-DeniaFSystem-FAps/). �r.Paul Ben-Ishai pom�etl�o�eseerch Ihat was commissioncd by Ihe U.S Army�o fintl oul why people ran away when Ihe beem�ouched them."I�you a�e unlucky enough to be s[2ndln�[here when II hl,s yov,you will!r_el like yow botly is on fire"TPe US.Depar(ment of Delense explains how'Tlie sen�2pon tlissipates wnen lhe�arpe[moves out ol lhe beam.The sensaben is�n�ense enounn m cause a neatly ins�an[aneous re0ex action of the targei lo Flea the beam" HUMAN SKIN WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS AN EXTREMITV ALLOWING HIGHER EXPOSURES OursRin is our largest or5�an Dani�yr Leszcrynsla,Pl�p,Chmf Ea¢orof RaOia?�o�and Henlili has s�atetl�ha� [he Intema(rona/Commisslon on Non-Ionizin0 Radiafion Pmfec[im usually re/eme0lo as N]NIRP-is tlevelapmg reCOmmendabons fo�pubhc�poswe Ii�niLs o(these hlghei 'rreque�ncies is planning m das�ify all the slun rti Ihe human body as belonginn t�Ns limbs rethar�han to the heatl or torsa Leszezynski c2utionetl Nat,'I(you classify skin as limbs-no ma[ter where[he skin is-Vou are permiitetl ro expose ii more than otherw�se" We assume�hat In tenns of US exposure lirnits thls means that ihe skin will be classified os"an exttemlty". Extremibes are allowed to be exposed m much higher radiation levels than ihe braiq ter,o,leqs and arms in ihe USA cetremities-in regaNs to wireless radiztion-are specifiealty wrists aM hantls,ankles and Ieet and�he ear. SG DEPLOVMENT WITHOU7 HEALTH EFFECT EVALUA710N ti�Is Oeing tleveloped entl implemenvetl wilhoul ad'eUuaie evaluation of the ef�ect of this lecJmology on human health zfter long term exposure to these frequencies.Peer reviewetl reseerch slutlies Y�eve fountl ativerse eHects hom the electroinagnebc frequencies currenily in use antl t�at will be in ure tor this new tect�nology "There is an urgem neetl�o evaluate SG heallh effecis naw before mill�ons are ex0osed We neetl ro knaw if SG increeses Ihe Iisk of skin diswses such as melanoma or other skin cenceis's�ated Ron Melnick,the National Insti Wres oF Health scienfst,now reliretl,who led�he tlesign oF ihe National TozimingV Pmgrem s W tly on cNl phone radiofrequency ratliation. In Dr.Cindy Rus,sell's A 5G Wireless Potwe_WII It give us a smart nation or conVlbute to an unYiealthy one � Bp`C�W}IRflESS (nupsirss��o�.,neesvaoo�o�ne�o ozizwe�izo)(r��POF��nnp�.uwww.s��ma� IUIURE mcrosorg/Porials/19/assets/tlocs/A°a205G�2oWireless%20Fuwre%20Porrnatted�20PDF.ptll7ver-2oi]- 03�3094]19-15]),published In the tha Santa Clara Medical Assomation,Russell states that"3G,4G,SG or u�}.A�3�y��,�Ip� ill� •VI_u �'ll��•�� aoombinationofzappinglrequenoiesgivingueimmusveaonneotion&ndentertemmen[bme[a P ��8� °'` poienfiallysleep pnee'Russell detalls ihe scienti(ic tlocument2[ion on 5G's frequencies which inclutle -- arrhyt�mlas,heartiatevariabiliry,bactenalaffects,antibioticresistance,immunesystema(fecta,r.hmma[in � �______ - afleds,teratogeniceflects,altere49eneexpressionandcataracL=. Dr.Cmdy Russell liats specific recommendations shzred hy Enmmnmen�al Healtli imst and scientists - worltlwide.(hnpg:Odnvegooule.com/PAe/tl/0814P6QNkmaXuMWZMnRjeEhFRVk/view) RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTN � Do no�proaee9 to mll om%tachnologies pentlino p�rmarket sNdieson health effects. 2 Reevaluale snfeiy stantlards basetl on long Ierm es well as short term s W dles an 6iolo9lcal efiects. 3. P,esr.intl a portion of Section]0�1 of Ihe Telecommonications Act o!1996 which preempts state and local gavemment regulation forthe placement,constmetian,antl mntlifitation of personal wi�eless service facilities on the basis'of the envimnmen!al effecK so that healN and envimnmental issues can be adtlressed. 4. Resantl potlioas o(The SpectmmAct which was pagsed in 2012as parl o(Ihe M�ddle ClassTax Relief and Job CreaLon Act which sinps the abilny mry oKicials antl local gwemments to regulate eellular eommunica6ons eqwpmenf,pmvitles no puMle noufication or apportunity for publ�ic input antl mey po�entially result in environmental impacis. 5. Cieate an independent mvl:idismplinary scienufic agency tzsked with tleveloping appropriale safety regvlations,premarket testing antl reseamh needs in a V2nsparent envimnment with pubGo inpw. fi. L2bel perpnen�EMF In(nrma[ion on tlevu,es alona v✓ph appropnate p�ec2ullonary wamings. MtyslleMmsl.orglkey-issueslcell-phoneswirelessl5g-nehvorks-io4scientific-overview-humarvM1ealih-nsksl yg 10/11/2018 Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT:Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks-Environmental Health Trust RESOURCES Click Here For EHT's Scientific FactSheets On 5G (Https://Ehtrust.Org/Small-Cells-Mini-Cell-Towers-Health- Letters-Scientists-Health-Risk-5g/) Click here to see the latest science on 5G millimeter waves. (https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/) Please take the time to scroll down to reatl research recent research studies,watch videos and see expert testimony.EHT also has a youtube playlist tledicatetl to 5G science(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvPg1AyQ431&Iist=PLT6DbkXhTGoBmSJ3hFcJFavw4JbLw6tnw)antl to citizen testimony on 5G(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0_zGHH3KA&Iist=PLT6DbkXhTGoCkk3LER9GhrRFlBzwcu3an). This webpage contains lists inclutling recent bioeffects research,videos of expert lectures,antl a list of submissions to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers.Please scroll down for this information. Potential Risks to Human Heakh Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems - ---- Expert Forum Lecture at the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University Medical ' �� l�ge C�uota Time School,January 24,2017 ; � Watch a lecture on submillimeter antl millimeter freyuencies by Paul Ben-Ishai,PhD of the Access to ihis site requires the use of Department of Physics,Ariel University,Israel,Full Bio quota time.You may start a 10 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Ishai)and Yuri Feldman,PhD,Head of the Dielectric minute session to view this site and others in the same category. Spectroscopy Laboratory,Department of Applietl Physics,Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Full Bio(http://aph.huji.ac.il/people/feldman/cv.htm).Click here for a PDF of Abstract for this Presentation(https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Yuri-Feldman-and-Paul-Ben-Ishai- Abstract.pd fl NEWS Is 5G technology dangerous?Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposetl to cellphone ratliation, (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html)Jim Puzzanghera,Los Angeles Times,Aug 8,2016 A 5G Wireless Future:Will it give us a smart nation or contribute to an unhealthy one,Dr.Cindy Russell, (https://issuu.com/18621/docs/bulletin_0217_web/20)Santa Clara Medical Association Bulletin Jan/Feb 2017(Page 20 to 23 (https://issuu.com/18621/docs/bulletin_0217_web/20))(Text only PDF)(http://www.sccma- mcros.org/Portals/19/assets/tlocs/A°io205G°io20W ireless°io20Future°io20Formatted°io20PDF.pdf?ver=2017-03-23-094719-157) The Internet of Things Poses Human Health Risks:Scientists Question the Safety of Untested 5G Technology at International Conference, (http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/the-internet-of-things-poses-human-health-risks-scientists-question-the-safety-of-untested-5g- technology-at-international-conference-779643.htm)Environmental Health Trust Press Release 3/9/2017 Everythin�You Need to Know About 5G IEEE(http://spectrum.ieee.org/video/telecom/wireless/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g)article RESOURCES FOR THE COMMUNITY Click Here For EHT's Scientific FactSheets On 5G (Https://Ehtrust.Org/Small-Cells-Mini-Cell-Towers-Health- Letters-Scientists-H ealth-Risk-5g/) � Why We Should Oppose 5G on Health Grountls,by Dr.Ronald Powell(https://www.scribtl.com/tlocument/339826676/Why-We-Should-Oppose- 5G-on-Health-G rounds) WHAT ARE 5G AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS?Website:http://whatis5g.info/(http://whatis5g.info/)This website consiclers all the issues surrounding 5G and the man ways 5G and the IoT will harm humans,the environment,and our Earth from cybersecurity to conflict minerals to health. Citizens'Cell Tower 5G Information Packet of Montgomery County(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1 i- 83Q9ECMkZXI0HfE9sIX9y3zq1 CGu7ZHemcT3TOCLl/edit#slide=id.p):This slide presentation contains key details for communities addressing small cells in their neighborhood. https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/ 4/8 10/11/2018 Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT:Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks-Environmental Health Trust RECENT 5G and MILLIMETER WAVE BIOEFFECT STUDIES Click here to see the latest science on 5G millimeter waves. (https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/) This compilation has included several papers compiled from Dr.Joel Moskowitz on his blog SaferEMR(http://www.saferemr.com/2016/08/is-5g- cellular-technology-harmful-to.html),from work presented at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies at Hebrew University (https://ehtrust.org/science/key-scientific-lectures/2017-expert-forum-wireless-radiation-human-health/)and from the Environmental Health Research Team. Russell CL.5G wireless telecommunications expansion:Public health and environmental implications. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016)Environmental Research.Available online 11 April 2018.in press. • "On the horizon,a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to powerthe Internet of Things(IoT)" • "It is argued that the adclition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies,will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives" � • "Like other common toxic exposures,the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation(RF EMR)will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group.This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors.Effects can also be non-linear.Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave(RF EMR)radiofrequencies,it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known.Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated" • "Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems.A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted,along with development of independent health and environmental advisory boards that include independent scientists who research biological effects and exposure levels of radiofrequency radiation.Sound regulatory policy regarding current and future telecommunications initiative will require more careful assessment of risks to human health,environmental health,public safety, privacy,security and social consequences.Public health regulations need to be updated to match appropriate independent science with the adoption of biologically based exposure standards prior to further deployment of 4G or 5G technology." Betzalel N,Ben Ishai P,Feldman Y.,The human skin as a sub-THz receiver—Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? (https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303)Environ Res.2018 May;163:208-216.doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018,01.032.Epub 2018 Feb 22. • Experimentally we showed that the reflectance of the human skin in the sub-THz region depends on the intensity of perspiration,i.e.sweat duct's conductivity,and correlates with levels of human stress(physical,mental ancl emotional).Later on,we detected circular dichroism in the reflectance from the skin,a signature of the axial mode of a helical antenna.The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear.We also revealed correlation of electrocardiography(ECG)parameters to the sub-THz reflection coefficient of human skin.In a recent work,we developed a unique simulation tool of human skin,taking into account the skin multi-layer structure together with the helical segment of ttre sweat duct embedded in it.The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR)of the skin in extremely high frequency band.In this paper,we summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication.Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission(FCC)has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24GHz(5G).This trencl of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region.One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise,caused by clevices working at the very same frequencies as those,to which the sweat duct(as a helical antenna)is most attuned.We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication,before the possible consequences for public health are explored. Nasim I,Kim S.Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink(https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683).Submitted on 10 Nov 2017 to IEEE International Communications Conference. • Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density(PD)and specific absorption rate(SAR)than a current cellular system.This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink. TRIPATHI et al.,Frequency of the resonance of the human sweat duct in a normal mode of operation (https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/D9A2E695-D15D-19E6-03A77C91 ED8C556F_382113/boe-9-3-1301.pdf? da=1&id=382113&seq=0&mobile=no),BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 130, Vol.9,No.3�1 March 2018 • This result indicates that careful consideration should be given while designing electronic and photonic devices operating in the sub- terahertz frequency region in order to avoid various effects on human health due to these waves. https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/ 5/8 10/11/2018 Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT:Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks-Environmental Health Trust Betzalel,Y.Feldman,and P.Ben Ishai,"The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin;' (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016593/)IEEETrans.THz Sci.Tech.(Paris)7(5),521-528(2017). • In 2008,we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer could be regarded as a helical antenna in the sub- THz band.The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still very unclear,but it is obvious that the absorption of electromagnetic energy is governed by the topology for the skin and its organelles,especially the sweat duct. . Di Ciaula(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Di°io20Ciaula°io20A°io5BAuthor°io5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29402696),Towards 5G communication systems:Are there health implications?(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696),Int J Hyg Environ Health. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696#)2018 Feb 2. • "Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature;alter gene expression,promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress,inflammatory and metabolic processes,could generate ocular damages,affect neuro- muscular dynamics" • "Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However,available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects,to invoke the precautionary principle,to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. Scientific Citations from the published study"Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems" by Paul Ben-Ishai,PhD and Yuri Feldman,PhD Feldman,Yuri and Paul Ben-Ishai."Potential Risks to Human Health Originating from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems:' (https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Yuri-Feldman-and-Paul-Ben-Ishai-Abstract.pdf)Abstract,2017. Feldman,Yuri,et al."Human skin as arrays of helical antennas in the millimeter and submillimeter wave range" (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.128102)PhysicalRevrewLetters,vol.100,no.12,2008. Hayut,Itai,et al."Circular polarization induced by the three-dimensional chiral structure of human sweat ducts" • (https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.042715)Physical Review,vol.89,no.4,2014. Hayut,Itai,et al."The Helical Structure of Sweat Ducts:Their Influence on the Electromagnetic Reflection Spectrum of the Skin" (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6395794/) IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Techno%gy,vol.3,no.2,2013,pp. 207-15. Professor Yuri Feldman—Research Study Summaries,The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Department of Applied Physics,Dielectric Spectroscopy Laboratory (http://aph.h uji.ac.i I/people/feldman/research.htm#Human°io20Skin°io20as°io20Arrays°io20of°io20Helical°io20Antennas°io20in°io20the°io20Millimeter°io20; RESEARCH ON MILLIMETER WAVES Haas AJ,et al."Effect of acute millimeter wave exposure on dopamine metabolism of NGF-treated PC12 cells (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339776)"Journal ofRadiation Research,2017. Gandhi OP,Riazi A.Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB14R6QNkmaXuZ1 JqNHpYNWRWdjg/view)IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theoryand Techniques,vol.34, no.2,1986,pp.228-235. Haas AJ,et al."Effects of 60-GHz millimeter waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12 cells using high-content screening" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhttps://www.osapublishing.org/boe/abstract.cfm?uri=boe-8-1-273/26921450?dopt=Abstract)Neuroscience Letters,vol.618,2016,pp.58-65. Le Drean Y,et al."State of knowledge on biological effects at 40-60 GHz" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070513000480) Comptes Rendus Physique,vol.14,no.5,2013,pp.402-411. Sivachenko IB,et al."Effects of Millimeter-Wave Electromagnetic Radiation on the Experimental Model of Migraine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26899844?dopt=Abstract):'Bulletrn ofExperimental8iologyand Medicine,vol.160,no.4,2016,pp.425-8. Soghomonyan D,K.Trchounian and A.Trchounian."Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields in the environment:what are their effects on bacteria?"(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27087527?dopt=Abstract)Applied Microbiologyand Biotechnology,vol.100, no.11,2016,pp.4761-71. Ramundo-Orlando A. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane—A brief review.( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007°io2Fs10762-010-9731-z)Journal of lnfrared Millimeter Terahertz Waves,vol.30,no.12,2010,PP•1400- 1411. REFERENCES ON DEFENSE USE OF MILLIMETER WAVES https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/ 6/8 10/11/2018 Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT:Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks-Environmental Health Trust US Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program FAQS(http://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial- System-FAQs/) A Narrative Summary and Inclependent Assessment of the Active Denial System The Human Effects Advisory Panel (http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Portals/50/Documents/Future_Non-Lethal_Weapons/HEAP.pd fl SUBMISSIONS TO THE FCC ON SPECTRUM FRONTIERS On July 14,2016,the FCC voted(https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/07/july-2016-open-commission-meeting)to approve Spectrum Frontiers,making the U.S.the first country in the world to open up higher-frequency millimeter wave spectrum for the development of 5G fifth- generation wireless cellular technology.The FCC was flooded with comments in opposition to 5G.Read full details at the EHT website on Spectrum Frontiers(https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-approves-5g-millimeter-wave-spectrum-frontiers/) The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council Comments to Thomas Wheeler,Chairman,Federal Communications Commission (http://nebula.wsimg.com/d47146dc1 eb6dede8e10446de2df0507?AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) "Federally-protected wildlife species are in danger",Briefing Memorandum from Dr.Albert Manville (http://nebula.wsimg.com/6604901702145f9f6235820c4f9b1663?AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) July 20,2016—Dr.Joel Moskowitz Comment to the FCC,"FCC Open Letter Calls for Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of Radiofrequency Radiation"(http://www.saferemr.com/2016/07/fcc-open-letter-calls-for-moratorium-on.html) Dr.Yael Steins Comments to the FCC in Opposition to 5G Spectrum Frontiers Millimeter Wave Technology(https://ehtrust.org/letter-fcc-dr-yael- stein-md-opposition-5g-spectrum-frontiers/) Dr.Ronald M.Powell Ph.D.Comment to the FCC(http://nebula.wsimg.com/cd1 ae35ac217f717d9ef624c8c34ca91? AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) Dr.Devra Davis to FCC,"Long Term Health and Safety Evaluation Needed Before Introduction of 5G" (http://nebula.wsimg.com/e082d261 a7df6879b06bd5f63a69db3a?AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) Comments to FCC by Electrical Pollution,"Parents Write to the FCC:Be on the Right Side of History"(https://ehtrust.org/letter-fcc-vote-no-5y- spectru m-frontiers-ri g ht-side-history/) Submission to FCC by Susan Clark,"Stop 5G harm to all living beings:The Science is Conclusive" (http://nebula.wsimg.com/ba65d94515b50058d3b1556302e84fcf?AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=l) Maryland Smartmeter Awareness Comment to the FCC,"FCC Proposed Move to 5G" (http://nebula.wsimg.com/177b84b5eff74db8bb33e1 b8b4a7d9c0?AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) Comments by Dafna Tachover and"We are the Evidence"to FCC,"Those Injured by Wireless ask Congress:Please Protect us and help protect the public's health.Say STOP to the FCC and wheeler in 5G vote"(http://nebula.wsimg.com/869b182fa88ef35090f791 b691 e1 c2d3? AccessKeyld=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) Angela Tsiang to US Senate Committee on Commerce,Science,and Transportation(https://ehtrust.org/wp- content/uploads/AngelaTsiangLetter.pd fl SPECTRUM FRONTIERS RESOURCES July 14,2016 FCC Meeting Vicleo Spectrum Frontiers vote.(https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/07/july-2016-open-commission- meeting) N Technology:FCC Opens Higher Frequencies to Phone Companies(http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/fcc-opens-high-frequencies-to- phone-companies/279020) Public News Service:FCC Votes Today on Opening Additional Wireless Spectrum for 5G(http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-07- 14/consumer-issues/fcc-votes-today-on-opening-additional-wireless-spectrum-for-5g/a52952-1) Regulators Pave Way For Speedy Next-Generation 5G Networks(http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-telecoms-idUSKCNOZU1 V9?i1=0) GSMA ANALYSIS Understanding 5G:Perspectives on future technological advancements in mobile (https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?fi1e=141208-5g.pdf&download) VIDEOS �loading videos Loading Videos... https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/ 7/g t01iV2018 Emironmental Healf�Tmst 5G antl IM1e IOT Scieniipc Overview of Human HealtM1 Risks-Envimnmental Heallh Tmsl INDUSTRY RESOURCES ON 5G GSMA InLlllgence Un�iFistanding 5G(ht�ps://wwwgsniaimelligence crm/reseam�/�fi1e=14�70&Sq.ptl(&download) � Global Organlaavons Porge New Fmn�iei!o�56 (Ntp/iwwwAgamericas.or4iL@�/89t4/b]74/67n8iGl�bal_Organiza;ionsPorgeJvew_Fmmier_of 5G Final.pdO Nokla.C�rea[ing a New Era of Commumcetion(https//networksnokia com/innova�ion/Sg) Innwation Cenier ei the lJntversity of Surrey:W hat is 5G7(httpY/www surrey.ac.uki6oic/ebouVwhat-5g) NhJ W ireless�Mlllime�er wave ch2nnel modeling(htio//wi�elass engineeriny nyu.edu/mmwev�c�annel-m�deling/) cr�kHe�eFo�eHrss<�e�un�Fa�csneesso�sc (Https://Ehtrust.Org/Small-Cells-Mini-Cell-Towers-Health- Letters-Sc ientists-Health-Risk-5g/) � ENVIRONMENTA� � %2ALTHT9UST Emeil us el Info@eh�mstorg(malito�.lnb@eh�mstorg] Mailinq atldress P0.Box 58.Teion Vlllage WV 03025 Express mail should be sent m J100 N Rachel Way Oni16 Eagles Rest Teton Nllage W V P3025 AboNEnvimnmen�alHeal�hTmst Keylssues Foiicy(M1llps:l/eRtrustorglpolicy/) Science (EHT)(M1tlps://e�ImsLorg/aboutQ (httpz/hhVuslorg/kay-IssuesQ (hflpsJ/ebbustarg/sclence/) EducateYourxel! TakeAction PesoumesbShare MediaBPublicatians (https://eFUmtorg/�ake- (M1ttOs'.I/ehtmsl.org/take-actlonq (M1ttps',Ile�Vus�.o�glresources-to� (htlps//ehlmstorg/pWlications/) aclion/educateryourself/) sFareQ covrrign�€�xoie s�.,,ome.iai��un m,s� � FFCEBOOM(HiTV:bFpLEB�OY..COMIEHTRU5T) "' TWITIEP(NTTV:/?Wfl'TER.COMISAFEPPHONES) -- YOIITUBE(HTTPS//WWWVOUTIIBE.COM/USER/WPTCHEMiR115T1 ��Os llehtmsl,orglkey�issueslcell-phoneswirelxss�5g-nebvorks-iobsden�iFlc-aeerview-humamhealN-risks� e�8 �9�40o n/1 COtiMC) S �,� HOME(/) ABOUTTHE STUDV(/ABOUT-THE-STUDY/) MOBILE PHONES&HEALTH (/MOBILE-PHONES-HEALTH/) NEWS(/NEWS/) XMOBISENSEAPP(/XMOBISENSE-APP/) CONTHCT(/CONTACT/) +�^e iri , am�i mz swer About the study v More �. Our team (/abouFlhe-study/[eam/)_ COSMOS ("Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use antl �� Parcici�q ,esearch �nst�tuces (/abouPthe-s[udy/p rt�). Heal[h") is an intemational mhort study investigating the , sciencifi�Advisory Group(/about- possible health effects of long-term use of mobile phones a,�yiscien�ific-advisory,group�. and o[her Wilele55 teChnologieS - Funding_(/abou4the- [u y/ ntl'ng/1 Why? In the last feev years the use of new mmmunica[ion technoloqies like . ;7 Ex[emal Links mobile phones antl wireless intemet, has rapidly incrersed.As these devices make use of Ratliofrequency Electroma9ne[ic Fieltls (RF-EMF). �-� Fi¢[COSMO$publicatian human exposure ro RFEMF has also Increased. There is extensive public (http�.//zcels- ctlamm/5�87�]821100015�7/L antl scientifi<interest in[he possibility that RFEMF exposure miqht 520-51877782�1000151�-ma n pclf? Increase the risk ot disease,as this has vet m be tletermined [id=2a3a3af0-32fb-11e6-8f8f- The COSMOS s[udy was established m stutiv the possible health eFFects OOOOOaacb360&actlnat=1465996680 74 b9 of mobile phone use. �- �posure�ss�ssment val'daCon publicz[ion Whol (httq�//www ehjoumal neVrontenVptlV�476- 069X-00-14.pdf) COSMOS is an intemational mnmr[ium o(six European munhies (�enmark.Finland France Sweden.the Nethetlantls, and the Unicetl - �ohmt pmfile' UK COSMOS (http://ije.oxFordjoumals.or9/mnten Veatlyl4�1` Kingtlom), 290,000 atlul[mobile phone users have been enrolletl in the -. How to Es[ablish antl Pollow up� smtly: 105,000 par[icipants in the UK,90,000 in the Ne[herlands. �ge Pr�pecCve Cohort SR dy. 50.000 in Swetlen, 30.000 in �enmark,antl 15.000 in Finland France Lessons from UK COSMOS recenpy receivetl fundin9 antl Is curcently recmitin9 par[iCipan[s for (h[[q�//joumals.plos.org/plosone/art cle� Id='101371/J urna.pone013152�), [helrsfutlY. How? Each of the participatinq munvies launched their own prospective mhort imtly on mobile phone antl EMFrelatetl heal[h risks(a 'mhorP .�1P�L]y,�'� + J�'�'.'� /-'�'y� �� .�"h-:.i1_{W � �FiA4;�:•�� being a 9roup of people Chat are stutlied over a periotl of[ime). The �i'i_.�. - �� t �` � first sNdy was launched in 2007. When they joinetl me stutly, �� [�.[t� �yq,� �'� C7#') ifya `t par[icipants filletl in a tle[ailed ques[ionnaire on how much they use �N,g��y�; `�� ' their mobilP phone,and also ansvrered a va�iety of questions on Neir r' �%� � � `'V �e ��, :; lifes[vle, health,antl other relevant exposures.lnformation on intlivitlual _ ( 1S u ��v� /.a�'r��-. mobile phone use is also mllec[ed From mobile phone operators (for the participanCs who providetl Wnsent[0 9ather thls information; the ma�orlry oFr[utivpartldpants consenCed [o [hls). This a<curate inPormation allows us to perform more accurate exposure d55P55R1211[Lhdn plevi0u5 IdrqP-SCdle PpideTiolOgiCdl 5[utli25.WP airtl m [rack[he health status of par[icipants using ques[ionnaires antl health re9istry data for 20 to 30 years.Health outmmes to be studietl indutle risk of cancers, beni9n tumors, neurolo9ical and cerebrovascular tli52d5P5,d5 WPII as ChdO9P5 i(1 OCNIIPncP Of SpBCifiC Symptom5 ovPf IIfi1P.5UCh d5 f1PdCIdChP 3tld SIPPp O�ISOfO�PlS, Each of ihe 6 munvies uses similar sNtiv prommis,whl<h enables us to pool [he data.Combining tla[a is newssary ro atltlress the possible associations between RFEMF exposure and relatively rare tliseases wch as cancer af the b2ln. :.�� _p- + �.�,1' a l� : ' "r"�' � � Y T t �'!�y � 1 r�({• ! } �J V^� �lfn' `�� ^;1 :� ,� N i~ .�1 �� ,y. .. . � Z� �y� • !G � i J�i 'n��J,� �1yy�//�7�� :n �4 ,=- .L'� �� C� `\�p�� ,�, ��'ulC . ,l +� .�_.[ _ !... . ,��r� ,��t ��f� Future work 5[arting in 2012 antl continuing until 20�6(depentling on the munVy), COSMOS smdy participants were asked to fiil in another detailetl questionnaire.Thiz 2nd questionnaire focusetl on mobile phones antl wireless technologles, but also mllected tlata on oCher envlronmental exposures, ensuring that the COSMO$study is a valuable resource for the study of witler envimnment antl health questiore.With the follow Up qUestiOnOdilP W2 Cdn COmpdr2 whPtllPl RlObilE PhOnP USP,hPdl[h antl habits have chan9etl since baseline when par[icipants were enrolled. Currently we are perPorming modellinq[o integrate[he selhreported questionnaire tlata on mobile phone use and the mobile phone pmvlder data m generate estlmates of lifetime mobile phone uze (also tzkin9 into acmunt changes in RFEMF levels over tlecades tlue to mmmunicatton network evaluation to e,9-36). Sclentiflc publicatlons The fl¢t COSMOS publications were published in the February 2011 issue of theiaumal Cancer Epltlemiology about the tlesiqn( Ii�rg for Ilnk ro oubllcatlon) (�[ �// Is- d B'1877782110007517/1- s2 0-518 7 7 7 8 211000'ISt7-malnodP titl=2 3 3 f0-32fb-ii 6-BfBf- 00000 b360& td t=1465996680 742b9b9fi tl Sf 1d74a16119c3c7) entl in[he March 2011 issue of the journal Envimnmental Health on Ne exposure assessment (cllck here for Ilnk ro oubllcation (�tto'//www.eh�oumal neUmntenVodf/1476-069%-10-'14.p��). RecenHy a couple of muntry speciFlc publlcations were publizhetl:"S4h4Lto FlI COSMOSUK 1hSR1LU�lournals org/mntenVeady/2015/11/02N4.4Ye�9)" and'H to E tabll h tl F II u��rg�P 45oective Cohort study In the 27st CenNry-Lessons from UK COSMOS' (hltpL/�qyrr�yqlQs,Qg[Dlosone/artltle7 Itl=101371/IQy�y�oone.013152t), F - , � .e�.. ..�.,e.�. � �°•••°"• (�t[�.d�! rwwmsmos Naiolinslia — , `�XP.a�kz.R�i,�dn�Q �NJNSg4� k axm�a� c ri��n�caiiwww��a:��.�in ABOUTTHESTUDY CONTACT artic patlpg research'nsEWtes S/aboucme-smtly[ a�esq, Vaielaan 2 o,,,� 3sos ro u�rern� 1/abovo-me-smtly/reamq, me Nemerlanas F�nrl�n9 1/aboucme-smtly/fuytl pgQ gistlaime�antlpLyf/tlstlafine�/1 ContaRVmna[VZ p20181RASAlIRI9M1t5Feservetl.//Web5lfeby.iOMlSolsuPlem '[a[e hVplM1wvwihecosmospmjed.org/abou4t�e-sWtlyl y3 Kevin Firnstahl From: Citizen Support Center <dubuqueia@mycusthelp.net> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:33 AM To: Kevin Firnstahl Subject: "Contact Us" inquiry from City of Dubuque website Contact Us Name: Susan Balsamo Address: 2770 Van Buren Avenue Ward: Phone: 5635433586 Email: suebalsamo47@gmail.com City Department: City Council Message: Please consider taking some more time on the 5G issue. I appreciate the desire for connectivity, but there are serious concerns about the safety of the current plan. Also, I support the requirement for sidewalks along JFK. It's frightening to see pedestrians trying to navigate that area - either on or off of the road but people do need to walk there. Thank you so much for your consideration - I know these are not easy issues and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of all of us. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Kevin Firnstahl From: Sent: To: Subject: Luis Del Toro Friday, October 12, 2018 10:30 PM Kevin Firnstahl; Mike Van Milligen Fw: 5G Wireless From: Chad/Kim Morarend <morarendfamily@q.com> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 9:58:44 PM To: Roy D. Buol; Ric W. Jones; David T. Resnick; Brett Shaw; Luis Del Toro; Kate Larson; Jake A. Rios Subject: 5G Wireless Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am asking all of you to more closely investigate concerns over the safety of the 5G wireless network planned to be placed in our city. I am the father of four boys and don't want a potentially harmful technology in our neighborhoods. Before giving final approval please ask yourself if you would be comfortable with one of these transmitters in your front yard. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Chad Morarend Click here to report this email as spam. 1 THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi CRENNA M. BRUMWELL, ESQ. CITY ATTORNEY Dubuque 2013.2017 To: MAYOR ROY D. BUOL AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2018 RE: SOUTHWESTCO WIRELESS, INC. D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS LEASE SUPPLEMENT Reconsideration from October 1, 2018 City Council Meeting Background The City Council entered into a Master Lease Agreement with Southwestco Wireless, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Southwestco) on March 19, 2018. The Master Lease Agreement outlined general terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties related to sites the City may permit Southwestco to locate small wireless facilities and communications equipment. The Master Lease Agreement provided the process for Southwestco and the City to collaborate on the placement of facilities and equipment when an opportunity presented itself on City assets. The Master Lease Agreement contemplated lease supplements for each specific location or site as facilities and equipment would be installed, each requiring a public hearing and vote of the City Council. The term of the Master Lease Agreement is twenty (20) years and provides for an initial ten (10) year term for each supplemental lease with automatic extensions for two (2) additional five (5) year terms unless Southwestco terminates the supplemental lease at the end of a term. The Master Lease Agreement includes a provision allowing Southwestco to terminate a supplemental lease upon the provision of three (3) months prior written notice to the City. The purpose of the Master Lease Agreement was to address connectivity concerns in the community for citizens as well as providers of public safety as well as to work around State and Federal preemptions as effectively as possible. On October 1, 2018 three (3) supplemental leases with Southwestco appeared on the public hearing portion of the city council agenda for consideration. Following the public hearing the supplemental leases were approved. Upon approval the Mayor signed the supplemental leases and they were provided to Southwestco. On October 12, 2018 a council member on the prevailing side of the October 1, 2018 vote asked the items be placed on the October 15, 2018 city council agenda for reconsideration. The items have been placed on the agenda for tonight's meeting under the action agenda. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DUBUQUE, IOWA SUITE 330, HARBOR VIEW PLACE, 300 MAIN STREET DUBUQUE, IA 52001-6944 TELEPHONE (563) 589-4381 / FAx (563) 583-1040 / EMAIL cbrumwel@cityofdubuque.org Governing Law Federal and state law are involved in the city's ability to control and/or limit the siting of cellular/wireless installations. At both levels of regulation, the City's authority to regulate is narrowing. Municipalities are preempted and opportunities to govern in this area are extremely limited. Preemption comes into play when discussing the interplay of federal, state, and local laws. Preemption means the laws of a superior government (federal law or state law) supersedes that of an inferior government (municipality) when there is a conflict of law. Staff working on these projects has provided an in-depth analysis of preemption which has previously be provided to you. I am attaching it to this memo as well as a refresher. Iowa Law Iowa is one of many states that has enacted cell siting legislation in Chapter 8C of the Iowa Code. I've attached the code to this memo as well. The Iowa law incorporates many of the federal regulations. To summarize, the law covers access to public rights- of-way, puts caps on the costs and fees which can be charged by municipalities, and establishes timelines municipalities must comply with in processing applications for cell siting. More specifically, Iowa Code §8C.3 the city CANNOT: 1. Require an applicant to submit information about, or evaluate an applicant's business decisions with respect to, the applicant's designed service, customer demand for service, or quality of the applicant's service to or from a particular area or site, but may require propagation maps solely for the purpose of identifying the location of the coverage or capacity gap or need for applications for new towers in an area zoned residential. 2. a. Evaluate an application based on the availability of other potential locations for the placement or construction of a tower or transmission equipment. b. Require the applicant to establish other options for collocation instead of the construction of a new tower or modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change to an existing tower or existing base station. c. Notwithstanding paragraph "b", an authority shall require an applicant applying for the construction of a new tower to provide an explanation regarding the reason for choosing the proposed location and the reason the applicant did not choose collocation. The explanation shall include a sworn statement from an individual who has responsibility over placement of the tower attesting that collocation within the area determined by the applicant to meet the applicant's radio frequency engineering requirements for the placement of a site would not result in the same mobile service functionality, coverage, and capacity, is technically infeasible, or is economically burdensome to the applicant. 3. Dictate the type of transmission equipment or technology to be used by the applicant or discriminate between different types of infrastructure or technology. 2 4. a. Require the removal of existing towers, base stations, or transmission equipment, wherever located, as a condition to approval of an application. b. Notwithstanding paragraph "a", the authority may adopt reasonable rules regarding removal of abandoned towers or transmission equipment. 5. Impose environmental testing, sampling, or monitoring requirements, or other compliance measures, for radio frequency emissions from transmission equipment that are categorically excluded under the federal communications commission's rules for radio frequency emissions pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(b)(1). 6. Establish or enforce regulations or procedures for radio frequency signal strength or the adequacy of service quality. 7. Reject an application, in whole or in part, based on perceived or alleged environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, as provided in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 8. Prohibit the placement of emergency power systems that comply with federal and state environmental requirements. 9. Charge an application fee, consulting fee, or other fee associated with the submission, review, processing, or approval of an application, unless the fee charged is in compliance with this section. Fees imposed by an authority or by a third -party entity providing review or technical consultation to the authority shall be based on actual, direct, and reasonable administrative costs incurred for the review, processing, and approval of an application. In no case shall total charges and fees exceed five hundred dollars for an eligible facilities request or three thousand dollars for an application for a new tower, for the initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on a wireless support structure, for a modification of an existing tower or, existing base station that constitutes a substantial change to an existing tower or base station, or any other application to construct or place transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request. An authority or any third -party entity shall not include within its charges any travel expenses incurred in the review of an application for more than one trip to the authority's jurisdiction, and an applicant shall not be required to pay or reimburse an authority for consultant or other third -party fees based on a contingency -based or result -based arrangement. 10. Impose surety requirements, including bonds, escrow deposits, letters of credit, or any other type of financial surety, to ensure that abandoned or unused towers or transmission equipment can be removed, unless requirements are competitively neutral, nondiscriminatory, reasonable in amount, and commensurate with the historical record for local facilities and structures that are abandoned. 11. Condition the approval of an application on the applicant's agreement to provide space on or near the tower, base station, or wireless support structure for authority or local governmental or nongovernmental services at less than the market rate for such space or to provide other services via the structure or facilities at less than the market rate for such services. 12. Limit the duration of the approval of an application, except that construction of the approved structure or facilities shall be commenced within two years of final 3 approval, including the disposition of any appeals, and diligently pursued to completion. 13. Discriminate on the basis of the ownership, including ownership by the authority, of any property, structure, or tower when promulgating rules or procedures for siting wireless facilities or for evaluating applications. Iowa Code §8C.4 and §8C.5 do provide municipalities some limited authority over cell siting related to zoning, land use, planning, and permitting. However, the language below ultimately bars the City from stopping companies from placing facilities and equipment on city property. Emphasis is added to draw attention to certain provisions. 8C.4 Uniform rules — new tower applications. 1. An authority may exercise zoning, land use, planning, and permitting authority within the authority's territorial boundaries with regard to the siting of new towers, subject to the provisions of this chapter and federal law. 2. An applicant that proposes to construct a new tower within the jurisdiction of an authority that has adopted planning and zoning regulations shall submit the necessary copies and attachments of the application to the appropriate authority and comply with applicable local ordinances concerning land use and the appropriate permitting processes. 3. All records, documents, and electronic data in the possession or custody of authority personnel are subject to chapter 22. Disclosure of such records shall be consistent with applicable state law. 4. An authority, within one hundred fifty calendar days of receiving an application to construct a new tower, unless another date is specified in a written agreement between the authority and the applicant, shall comply with the following provisions: a. Review the application for conformity with applicable local zoning regulations, building permit requirements, and consistency with this chapter. An application is deemed to be complete unless the authority notifies the applicant in writing, within thirty calendar days of submission of the application, specifying the deficiencies in the application which, if cured, would make the application complete. The authority's timeframe to review the application is tolled beginning the date the notice is sent. The authority's timeframe of one hundred fifty days for review of the application begins running again when the applicant cures the specified deficiencies. Following the applicant's supplemental submission, the authority has ten days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice that specified deficiencies in the application. The authority's timeframe of one hundred fifty days to review the application is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices in conformance with this paragraph. The authority shall not include deficiencies in a second or subsequent notice that were not delineated in the original notice. The authority's timeframe for review does not toll if the authority requests information regarding any of the considerations an authority may not consider as described in section 8C.3. b. Make its final decision to approve or disapprove the application. c. Advise the applicant in writing of its final decision. 5. If the authority fails to act on an application to construct a new tower within the timeframe for review specified under subsection 4, the application shall be deemed approved. 6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affirmative disapproval of an application under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jurisdiction. 8C.5 Uniform rules for certain changes. 1. An authority may exercise zoning, land use, planning, and permitting authority within the authority's territorial boundaries with regard to an application for initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support structures, for modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or for a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request, subject to the provisions of this chapter and federal law. 2. An applicant that proposes an initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support structures, a modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request, within the jurisdiction of an authority that has adopted planning and zoning ordinances, rules, or regulations shall submit the necessary copies and attachments of the application to the authority and comply with such applicable local ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning land use and zoning and the appropriate local permitting processes. 3. All records, including but not limited to documents and electronic data, in the possession or custody of authority personnel are subject to chapter 22. Disclosure of such records shall be consistent with applicable state law. 4. An authority, within ninety calendar days of receiving an application pursuant to subsection 2, unless another date is specified in a written agreement between the authority and the applicant, shall comply with the following provisions: a. Review the application for conformity with applicable local zoning ordinances, rules, or regulations, building permit requirements, and consistency with this chapter. An application is deemed to be complete unless the authority notifies the applicant in writing, within thirty calendar days of submission of the application, specifying the deficiencies in the application which, if cured, would make the application complete. The authority's timeframe for review is tolled beginning the date the notice is sent. The authority's ninety -day timeframe for review of the application begins running again when the applicant cures the specified deficiencies. Following the applicant's supplemental submission, the authority has ten days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice that specified deficiencies. The authority's ninety -day timeframe to .review the application is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices in conformance with this paragraph. The authority shall not include deficiencies in a second or subsequent notice that were not delineated in the original notice. The 5 authority's ninety -day timeframe for review does not toll if the authority requests information regarding any of the considerations an authority may not consider as described in section 8C.3. b. Make its final decision to approve or disapprove the application. c. Advise the applicant in writing of its final decision. 5. If the authority fails to act on an application for an initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support structures, for a modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or for a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request within the review period specified under subsection 4, the application shall be deemed approved. 6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affirmative disapproval of an application under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jurisdiction. The use of public lands for towers and transmission equipment by lease is covered in Iowa Code §8C.6. 8C.6 Use of public lands for towers and transmission equipment. 1. In accordance with other applicable laws, when entering into a lease with an applicant for the applicant's use of public lands, an authority shall offer the market rate value for use of that land. The term of the lease shall be for at least twenty years, but all or a portion of the land may be subject to release for public purposes after fifteen years. 2. a. If the authority and the applicant cannot agree on the market rate for lease of the public land and cannot agree on the process to derive the market rate, the appraisals of a three-person panel of appraisers shall determine the market rate. Each party will appoint one appraiser and the two appointed appraisers shall select a third appraiser. Each appraiser shall independently appraise the appropriate market rate for lease of the land. The market rate shall be set at the median value between the highest and lowest market rates determined by the three independent appraisers. However, if the median between the appraisals of the appraisers appointed by each party is greater than or less than ten percent of the appraisal of the appraiser selected by the two appraisers, then the appraisal of the appraiser selected by the two appraisers shall determine the rate for the lease. Each appraiser shall send a copy of the appraisal to the authority and the applicant. The authority shall use the appraisal process under this paragraph to determine the lease rate for purposes of this subsection. b. An authority shall approve or reject the lease rate as determined by the appraisal process pursuant to paragraph "a" within fifteen days following completion and receipt of the appraisals obtained pursuant to paragraph "a". The authority's failure to reject the lease rate as determined by the appraisal process within fifteen days constitutes approval of the lease rate determined pursuant to paragraph "a" as the market rate value for the use of the land for purposes of the lease between the authority and the applicant. 6 c. The authority and applicant shall conclude the appraisal process within one hundred fifty calendar days from the date the applicant first offered a proposed lease rate to the authority. d. If using the three-person panel, each party shall bear the cost of its own appointed appraiser and equally share the cost of the third appraiser. Small wireless facilities are regulated in Iowa Code §8C.7A. 8C.7A Uniform rules for small wireless facilities — permit approval. 1. a. Except as provided in this section, an authority shall not prohibit or restrict the siting of a small wireless facility. b. For purposes of this section, "siting" means the mounting, installation, maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of a small wireless facility on or adjacent to any of the following: (1) An existing tower, utility pole, wireless support structure, or other existing structure. (2) A new utility pole of a similar height and appearance as an existing utility pole and which is located within a five -hundred -foot radius of the existing utility pole. (3) A replacement utility pole of a similar height and appearance as an existing utility pole and which is located within a five -hundred -foot radius of the existing utility pole. 2. a. An authority that has adopted planning and zoning regulations shall authorize the siting of a small wireless facility within its jurisdiction and shall not require a person to obtain a special or conditional land use permit for any of the following: (1) For siting the small wireless facility in a public right-of-way or on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way to the extent that such structure is already in use as a wireless support structure by supporting non -authority communications equipment that involve external attachments, provided that such structure is not listed on the national register of historic places. (2) For siting the small wireless facility on an existing tower, utility pole, or wireless support structure, regardless of the location, except for on property zoned and used exclusively for single-family residential use or within a previously designated area of historical significance pursuant to section 303.34. b. A small wireless facility may be classified as a special or conditional• land use where such small wireless facility is not sited in a manner as provided in paragraph «a„ c. A person may install a new utility pole or wireless support structure in a public right-of-way subject to the provisions of this section. An authority may reasonably limit the number of new utility poles or wireless support structures, consistent with the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and provided that such limitation does not have the effect of prohibiting or significantly impairing a wireless service provider's ability to provide wireless service within the area of a proposed new structure. However, an authority may require a person to obtain a 7 special or conditional land use permit to install a new utility pole or wireless support structure for the siting of a small wireless facility on property zoned and used exclusively for single-family residential use or within a previously designated area of historical significance pursuant to section 303.34. 3. a. (1) An authority may require a person to obtain a building, electrical, or public right-of-way use permit for the siting of a small wireless facility to the extent that such permit is of general applicability and does not deny access to site the small wireless facility in a public right-of-way. Notwithstanding this paragraph, an authority shall not require a person to obtain a permit for the routine maintenance of a previously approved small wireless facility or the replacement of a previously approved small wireless facility with a facility of substantially similar height, weight, and wind and structural loading, provided, however, that an authority may require a person to obtain a permit to work in a public right-of-way or on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way with the same terms and conditions provided for other commercial projects or uses in the public right- of-way or on the authority structure. (2) (a) Except as provided in subparagraph divisions (b) and (c), an authority shall not impose any fee or require any application or permit for the installation, placement, operation, maintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility that is suspended on operator -owned cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. (b) An authority that has adopted a municipal or county code which requires an application or permit for the installation, placement, operation, maintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility may continue the application or permit requirement subsequent to July 1, 2017. (c) (i) An authority may require a single -use right-of-way permit for the installation, placement, operation, maintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility if any of the following conditions apply: (A) The work is contained within a highway lane or requires the closure of a highway lane. (B) The work disturbs the pavement, shoulder, ditch, or operation of a highway. (C) The work involves placement of a micro wireless facility on a limited access right-of-way. (D) The work requires any specific precautions to ensure the safety of the traveling public or the protection or operation of public infrastructure and such work was not authorized in, or will not be conducted in, the same time, place, or manner that is consistent with the approved terms of the existing permit for the facility or structure upon which the micro wireless facility is attached. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph division, "highway" means the same as defined in section 325A.1. b. An authority shall not require a person to apply for or enter into an individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the authority or any other entity for the siting of a small wireless facility on a utility pole located in a public right-of-way. 8 However, an authority may, through the conditions set forth in a permit obtained pursuant to this subsection, do any of the following: (.1) Establish nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral and commercially reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for such siting, which rates, terms, and conditions shall comply with the federal pole attachment requirements provided in 47 U.S.C. §224 and any regulations promulgated thereunder. (2) Require compliance with the Iowa electrical safety code, the national electrical safety code, applicable fire safety codes, and any building code or similar code of general applicability for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare that was adopted by an authority prior to the filing of the application. (3) Require that a small wireless facility reasonably match the aesthetics of an existing utility pole or wireless support structure that incorporates decorative elements. (4) Require compliance with section 306.46, subsection 1, and section 306.47. (5) Require that after the construction of a small wireless facility or new utility pole is completed in accordance with all conditions under which the permit is granted, which conditions shall be consistent with this section, the owner of the small wireless facility or new utility pole, or the owner's successor in interest, shall maintain the small wireless facility or new utility pole at the expense of the owner or successor and if the authority subsequently undertakes any maintenance, public improvement project, or reconstruction of authority property or equipment which requires the modification, relocation, or reconstruction of the small wireless facility or new utility pole, such work and the costs thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner or successor. If the project necessitating the modification, relocation, or reconstruction of the small wireless facility or new utility pole is for a private commercial purpose, the authority may require the owner or successor to modify, relocate, or reconstruct the small wireless facility or new utility pole upon prepayment of the costs of such work by the private commercial entity whose project facilitates the need for such work. For purposes of this subparagraph, "new utility pole" means a new .utility pole installed by a wireless service provider pursuant to this section solely for use as a wireless support structure and that is owned by the wireless service provider. c. Beginning with applications filed on or after September 1, 2017, an authority shall accept an application for, process, and issue a permit under this subsection as follows: (1) An applicant shall not be required to provide more information or pay a higher application fee, consulting fee, or other fee associated with the processing or issuance of a permit than the amount charged to a telecommunications service provider that is not a wireless service provider. The total amount of fees for processing or issuing a permit, including any fees charged by third parties, shall not exceed five hundred dollars for an application addressing no more than five small wireless facilities, and an additional fifty dollars for each small wireless 9 facility addressed in an application in excess of five small wireless facilities. An applicant shall not be required to pay any additional fees or perform any services relating to the acceptance, processing, or issuance of a permit, nor provide any services unrelated to the siting of the small wireless facility or of a new, replacement, or modified utility pole on which a small wireless facility is sited. For purposes of this subparagraph, engineering and structural review are deemed to be related to the permitting of a small wireless facility. The total amount of fees shall be adjusted every five years to reflect any increases or decreases in the consumer price index, rounded to the nearest five dollars. (2) An authority shall approve or deny a permit application within ninety days following the submission of a completed application. Except as provided herein, an application shall be deemed approved if the authorityfails to approve or deny the application within ninety days following the submission of a completed application. This period of time for the processing of an application may be extended upon mutual written agreement between the authority and the applicant. An applicant may address up to twenty-five small wireless facilities in a single application, provided, however, that a single application may only address small wireless facilities within a single two-mile radius consisting of substantially similar equipment to be placed on substantially similar types of wireless support structures or utility poles. In rendering a decision on an application addressing more than one small wireless facility, an authority may approve the application as to certain individual small wireless facilities while denying it as to others. An authority's denial of an individual small wireless facility or subset of small wireless facilities within an application is not a basis to deny the application as a whole. If an authority receives applications for the approval of more than seventy-five small wireless facilities within a single seven-day period, whether from a single applicant or from multiple applicants, the authority may notify an applicant submitting any additional siting applications during that seven-day period that the authority is invoking its right to an automatic thirty -day extension for any additional siting application submitted during that seven-day period. (3) (a) An authority may only. deny a completed application if any of the following apply: i. The application fails to include reasonable information required by the authority and in accordance with this subsection. ii. The application does not comply with the Iowa electrical safety code, the national electrical safety code, applicable fire safety codes, or any building code or similar code of general applicability for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare 10 that was adopted by an authority prior to the filing of the application. iii. The application would result in the authority being noncompliant with the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. iv. (A) A licensed engineer selected by the applicant or the authority certifies that siting the small wireless facility as proposed would compromise the structural safety of, or preclude the essential purpose of, the utility pole or wireless support structure in the public right-of-way on which it is proposed to be sited and any of the following conditions apply: (I) The applicant fails to redesign the small wireless facility in a manner determined necessary by the engineer to make the existing utility pole or wireless support structure structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless facility. (II) The applicant fails to modify the utility pole or wireless support structure to make the structure structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless facility. (III)The applicant fails to replace the utility pole or wireless support structure with a utility pole or wireless support structure that is structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless facility. (IV) The applicant fails to propose an alternative location for the siting of the small wireless facility. (B) If an applicant chooses to modify or replace a utility pole or wireless support structure to make the structure structurally sound for the siting of a small wireless facility, the applicant shall pay or advance to the authority the costs of modifying or replacing the utility pole or wireless support structure with a utility pole or wireless support structure that would safely support the small wireless facility and preserve the essential purpose of the utility pole or wireless support structure. (v) The application seeks approval of a new small wireless facility, utility pole, or wireless support structure that would impair, interfere with, or preclude the safe and effective use of facilities already located in the 11 public right-of-way for pedestrian, vehicular, utility, or other authority public right-of-way purposes. (vi) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility outside the public right-of-way that would impair, interfere with, or preclude the safe and effective use of an authority structure or property for a public purpose. (vii) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility on a wireless support structure used exclusively for emergency communications equipment. (viii) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility on a utility pole that is the vertical portion of a support structure for a traffic control signal or device, and the authority determines that the utility pole lacks sufficient space or Toad capacity for the proposed siting or the small wireless facility cannot be sited on the utility pole without impairing the public health, safety, or welfare. (b) An authority denying an application shall document the basis for the denial, including the specific code provisions or standards on which the denial is based, and provide the applicant with such documentation on or before the date the application is denied. (c) An applicant whose application is denied shall have an opportunity to cure any deficiencies identified by the authority as the basis for the denial and to submit a revised application within thirty days following the date of denial without paying an additional fee. The authority shall approve or deny a revised application within thirty days following submission. The authority shall not identify any deficiencies in a second or subsequent denial that were not identified in the original denial. (4) An authority shall not limit the duration of a permit issued for the siting of a small wireless facility in a public right-of-way pursuant to this subsection, and shall not limit the duration of a permit issued for the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way to any period less than ten years, with one automatic five-year renewal, provided, however, that the owner of the small wireless facility may terminate the permit upon providing ninety days' notice to the authority. The construction of a small wireless facility permitted pursuant to this subsection shall commence no later than two years following the date that the permit is issued, or two years after any appeals are exhausted. (5) An authority shall not impose a moratorium on the processing or issuance of permits under this subsection. (6) An authority shall process and issue permits on a nondiscriminatory basis. An authority shall receive an application for, process, and issue a permit for the siting of a small wireless facility in a manner substantially comparable to the permitting of other applicants within the jurisdiction of the authority, and may not impose discriminatory licensing standards for persons siting small wireless facilities. 12 4. The annual recurring rate charged by an authority for the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority utility pole shall not exceed the rate computed by the federal communications commission for telecommunications pole attachments in 47 C.F.R. §1.1409(e)(2). 5. a. An authority shall authorize the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way to the same extent the authority authorizes access to such structures for other non -authority communications equipment that involve external attachments, and may authorize the siting even if the authority has not previously permitted such access. b. A siting authorized under this subsection shall be subject to reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as provided in one or more agreements between the authority and the wireless service provider. Notwithstanding chapter 480A, the annual recurring rate for such siting as charged by an authority shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1. The amount charged for a similar commercial project or use to occupy a similar area of space on similarly situated property. 2. The projected cost to the authority resulting from the siting. 6 A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affirmative action on a permit, term or condition, or rate under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jurisdiction, except that if the final action of the authority was the denial of a conditional or special use permit pursuant to this section, the party must first seek review under section 335.13 or 414.10, as applicable. 7. This section only addresses an authority's approval of zoning and building permits and the rates for the use of public rights -of way and authority structures. This section shall not modify the rights and obligations of a nonauthority owner of a utility pole or a municipal utility that owns a utility pole, under 47 C.F.R. §1.1401 et seq., and the Iowa electrical safety code. 13 Discussion The process put in place by the City attempts to collaborate with Southwestco on the location of sites on/at city assets to achieve the best connectivity and outcome for citizens and businesses. Participation in a Master Lease Agreement and the supplemental leases is voluntary by Southwestco. Southwestco has already given the City more involvement and input in the location process via the Master Lease Agreement than required by Federal and State Law. For example, Southwestco is providing Radio Frequency Compliance Evaluations for each site prior to placement, agreeing to co -location with City when requested and providing lease and power payments.. Of note, Southwestco can currently reach an agreement with another utility, for example, Alliant Energy, to locate its facilities and equipment on Alliant utility poles. The City has no control or regulatory authority to prohibit this action by Southwestco. A change in federal and state laws would be required to return control of this issue to municipalities. There are multiple ongoing challenges to the federal regulatory scheme; the City could pursue participation in the litigation if desired. Some municipalities have explored passing local ordinances regulating small cell infrastructure, but under the current regulatory framework a challenger to an ordinance would likely succeed at considerable expense to the City. Reconsideration The supplemental leases approved by the City Council at the October 1, 2018 council meeting were signed by the Mayor and returned to Southwestco. The supplemental leases are binding contracts as all required elements of contract negotiation were met (Offer, Acceptance, Consideration). The leases cannot be un -signed; entering into the leases cannot be reconsidered. The options for the City Council at this point are to comply with the terms of the Master Lease Agreement and supplemental leases or to refuse to do so. A refusal to comply with the lease terms could result in a breach of contract action against the City. For discussion purposes, a breach of contract is an action or failure to act by a party to a contract, without legal excuse. A breach of contract can be minor or material. A breach is minor if, even though the breaching party failed to perform some aspect of the contract, the other party still receives the item or service specified in the contract. A breach is material if, as a result of the breaching party's action or failure to act in accordance with some aspect of the contract, the other party receives something substantially different from what was bargained for in the contract. The outcome of a breach of contract action depends on whether a breach is material or minor. Upon a material breach, the nonbreaching party is no longer required to perform under the contract and has the immediate right to all remedies for breach of the entire contract. Upon a minor breach, the nonbreaching party must still perform under the contract, but may recover damages resulting from the breach. 14 I cannot recommend the City Council act in a way which could result in the initiation of a breach of contract action against the City. The City Council could discuss other ways to engage on this matter related to local control and provide direction to staff. CMB:tls Enclosures cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Barry Lindahl, Senior Counsel Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager David Ness, Traffic Engineer David Lyons, Sustainable Innovations Consultant — GDDC 15 Masterpiece on the Mississippi TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Chris Kohlmann, Information Services Manager Dave Ness, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Federal and State Preemption which limit Dubuque's Authority and Options as it Relates to Regulation of Small Cell / SG Communication Placements DATE: lOctober 11, 2018 INTRODUCTION We have reviewed the Council discussion and questions from the "Small Cell" public hearing October lst . While the information and responses provided by Dave Lyons were generally correct, we thought it would be helpful for you and Council to have a more detailed staff overview of several key discussion points. This memo relates to one of those discussion points, namely pre-emption. BACKGROUND Broadly, the preemption principle refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority when the two authorities come into conflict. In other words. Federal law controls over State law, State law controls over Municipal ordinances The basis for this "pre-emption" lies in the Supremacy Clause of the Federal and State Constitutions. Preemption applies whether the conflicting laws come from the legislatures, courts, administrative agencies or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of the Federal Congress, preempts state laws, regulations or court decisions on voting rights. Similarly, FDA (Federal Drug Administration) regulations preempt state or local decisions in areas involving prescription drugs, In the case of telecommunications, there exists a broad range of Federal preemptions. Chief among those is Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act which, Mile professing to preserve state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on 16 applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. Allegations that a state or local government has acted inconsistently with Section 332(c)(7) are to be resolved exclusively by the courts (with the exception of cases involving regulation based on the health effects of RF emissions, which can be resolved by the courts or the Commission), Similarly, at the State level in Iowa the issue of preemption over local ordinances is unfortunately clear and unambiguous, For example, here is a portion of Chapter 8C of the Iowa Code ("Iowa Cell Siting Act"): 8C3 Uniform rules and limitations — applications. in order to ensure uniformity across this state with respect tc the consideration of every application, and notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, an authority shall not do any of the following: 5. impose environmental Testing, sampling, or monitoring requirements, or other compliance measures, for radio frequency emissions from transmission equipment that are categorically excluded under the federal communications commission's rules for radiofrequency emissions pursuant to 47 G.E.R. §1.1307(b)(1). 6, Establish or enforce regulatfons or procedures for radio frequency signal strength or the adequacy ofservice quality. 7. Reject an application, in whole or in parr`, based on perceived or alleged environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, as provided in 47 U.S.C. §332(0) (7)(B)(iv). in March 2018, the FCC adopted a Report and Order R&O. In it; the FCC excluded small wireless facilities from National Historic Preservation Act (NPHA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review under specified circumstances and also streamlined NHPA and NEPA review for larger wireless facilities, The FCC concluded that deployment of small wireless facilities by non -Federal entities do not require historic preservation review under NHPA nor environmental review under NEPA because such deployments are neither an "undertaking" (NHPA) nor a "major Federal action" (NEPA). The Second R&O noted that the FCC last considered whether some wireless facilities could be exempt from these requirements in 2004 when virtually all wireless sites were "macro" sites, but that new small cell sites are materially different in size and in their likelihood of impact on surrounding areas. The FCC concluded that conducting such reviews for small wireless sites would result in costs far exceeding 2 17 benefits and that the burden would grow exponentially as ever-increasing numbers of small wireless facilities are deployed. Here is the newly amended FCC rule that specifies the conditions for exclusion from NHPA and NEPA review for small wireless facilities: Section 1,1312(e): Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall no ppiY: 1. to the construction of mobile stations; or 2. where the deployment of facilities meets the following conditions:. (1) The facilities are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d), or the facilities are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or the facilities do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (ii) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding the associated equipment (as defined In the definition of antenna in § 1,1320(d)). fs no more than three cubic feet in volume; (iii) 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; (iv) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under Part 17 of this chapter; (v) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 38 CFR § 800.16(x); and (vi) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequencyradiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in §1.1307(b). These changes were adopted by the FCC on a 3-2 vote. The changes went Into effect on July 2, 2018, Given the level of specificity of pre-emption in this area, Staff has worked diligently to create a process that allows the City to maintain what oontrol it can, Two examples include: - Working with Carriers on Master Service and Sharing Agreements allows the City to influence placements through voluntary action, something ft could not do if the Carrier chose to make its placements on private property or private utility within the City ROW. 18 Creating early "site reviews" allowing City staff to inform carriers cf its preferences and work collaboratively to accomplish those preferences. (For example, if a pole exists that already has power and holds City equipment, such as a traffic camera, we work to have the carrier co -locate versus placing a new pole and power box within the RCVV). We are also looking at additional preferences we might gain in the future through this approach. For example, as our new data analysis system begins to inform us of areas of "un-" or "under-" served populations, we can seek to assure that future site locations by carriers assist in closing these service gaps for all citizens, ACTION STEP We are sorry that we do not have better news on the level of City authority in this area, We are aware that you and Council are receiving contacts on this issue and requests for action. The one action that looks available would be contacting Dubuque's state and federal delegations to determine whether there is an available path to regain City authority in this area. The National League of Cities, along with its local government partners, has fought this preemption order through comments to the FCC and advocacy on Capitol Hill, and will continue the fight in all three branches of the federal government. More detailed information from NLC is attached in the article "Five ` akeaways for Cities from the FCC's Small C 0 Preemption Order" Please let us know if we can provide any additional Cc: Crenna Brum I, City Attorney David Lyons, Sustainable Innovations Consultant GDDC Mary Rose Corrigan, RN MSN Public Health Specialist Randy Gehl, Public Information officer 4 19 CHAPTER 8C IOWA CELL SITING ACT aapter repeal -4d July 1, 2022; rAe 8C,1 Short title. 8C2 Definitions. 8C.3 Uniform rules and limitations — applications. 8C.4 Uniform rules — new tower applications. 8C.5 Uniform rules for certain changes. 8C6 Use of public hinds for towers and transmission equipment. 8C7 Utility poles. 8C.7A Uniform rules for small wireless facilities — permit approval. 8C.713 Small wireless facilities violation and removal. 8C.7C Height limitations. 8C.8 Application and construction, 8C.9 Repeal. 8C.1 Short tide. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Iowa Cell Siting Act". 2015 Acts, ch 129, §1, 10 8C.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. ''Applicant" means any person engaged in the business of providing wireless telecommunications services or the wireless telecommunications infrastructure required for wireless teleconummications services and who submits an application, 2"Application" means a request submitted by an applicant to an authority to construct a new tower, for the initial placement of transmission equipment on a wireless support structure, for the modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change to an existing tower or existing base station, or any other request to construct or place transmission equipment that does not meet the definition of an eligible facilities request. 3. "Authority'', used as a noun, means a state, county, or city governing body, board, agency, office, or commission authorized by law to make legislative, quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions relative to an application, "Authority" does not include any of the following: a. State courts having jurisdiction over land use, planning, or zoning decisions made by an authority, b. The utilities division of the department of commerce. 2015 Iowa Cade 1 20 c. Any entities, including municipally owned utilities established under or governed by Tide LK, subtitle 4 of the Code, that do not have zoning or permitting jurisdiction. 4. U. "Base station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables wireless communications licensed by the federal corruntutications commission or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. b. "Base station does not mean a tower or equipment associated with a tower. c. "Base station" includes but is not limited to equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services and unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. d. "Base station" includes but is not limited to radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiberoptic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration. e. "Base station" includes a structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government, supports or houses equipment described in this subsection that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or priMary purpose of providing such support. f "Base station" does not include any structure that at the time the relevant application is filed with the state or local government does not support or house equipment described in this subsection. 5. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of additional transmission equipment on a support structure already in use for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radia frequency signals for communications purposes. 6. "Electric utility" mems any owner or operator of electric transmission or distribution facilities subject to the regulation and enforcement activities of the Iowa utilities board relating to safety standards. 7. "Eligible facilities request" means a request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station and involves collocation of new transmission equipment, the removal of transmission equipment, or the replacement of transmission equipment. 8. "Existing tower" or "existing base station" means a tower or base station that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process. "Existing tower" includes a tower dud was not reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built and lawfully constructed. 9. "Initial placement or installation" means the first time transmission equipment is placed or installed on a wireless support structure. 10. "Micro wireless facilily means a small wireless facility with dimensions uo larger than twenty-four inches in length, fifteen inches in width, and twelve inches in height and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no more than eleven inches in length. 11, a. "Site", in relation to a tower that is not in the public right-of-way, means the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrotmding the tower and any access or utility 2013 Tema CA,dt Itifobue 2 21 easements currently related to the site. t). "Site", in relation to support structures other than towers, means an area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 12. a. "Small wireless facility" means a wireless facility that meets the following requirements: (1) Each antenna is no more than six cubic feet in volume. (2) (a) All other equipment associated with the small wireless facility is cumulatively no more than twenty-eight cubic feet in volume. (b) For purposes of this subparagraph, volume shall be measured by the external displacement of the primary equipment enclosure, not the internal volume of such enciccsure. An associated electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, cutoff switch, cable, conduit, and any equipment that is concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment may be located outside of the primary equipment enclosure and shall not be included in the calculation of the equipment volume. b, "Small wireless facility" includes a micro wireless facility as defined in subsection 10, c. "Small wireless facility" does not include any structure that supports or houses equipment described in this subsection. 13. "Substantial change" means a change in the existing support structure which results in one or more of the following: a. (1) Increase in the height of a tower, other than a tower in the public right-of-way, by more than ten percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater. (2) Increase in the height of existing support structures, other than a tower in subparagraph (1), by more than ten percent or more than ten feet, whichever is greater, (3) Height shall be measured fi-om the original support structure in cases whore deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops. Otherwise, height shall be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station.. inclusive of otiginally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act, Pub, L. No. 112-96, Tit, VI. b. (1) Addition of an appurtenance to the body of the tower, other than a tower in the public right-of-way, that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level ofthe appurtenance, whichever is greater. (2) Addition of an appurtenance to an existing support structure, other than a tower under subparagraph (1), that would protrude from the edge oldie structure by more than six feet, c. (1) Installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets. (2) Installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no preexisting ground cabinets associated with the tower in the public right-of-way or base station. (3) Installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with a tower in the public right-of-way or base NIS Iowa Code Irefobase 3 22 station. d. Excavation or deployment outside the current site. e. Defeat of conc.ealment elements of the existing support structure, f Noncompliance with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the existing support structure or base station equipment, except if the change is noncompliant only in a manner that does not exceed the thresholds identified in paragraphs "a" through "d". 14. "Tower" means a structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting an antenna and the associated facilities authorized or licensed by the federal communications corrunission. "Towor" includes structures constructed for wireless communications services, including but not limited to private, broadcast, and public safety services and unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services, such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site, 15. "Transmission equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission for a wireless communications service licensed or authorized by the federal communications commission, including but not limited to radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiberoptic cable, and regular - and backup power supply, "Transmission equipment" includes equipment associated with wireless cornrnimicatioris services, including but not limited to private, broadcast, and public safety services, such as wireless local, area network services and services utilizing a set of specifications developed by the institute of electrical and electronics engineers for interface between a wireless client and a base station or between two wireless clients, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services, such as microwave backhaul. 16. "Utility pole" means a pole or similar structure owned or utilized in whole or in part by a public utility, municipality, wireless service provider, or electric utility that is designed specifically for and used to carry lines, cable, transmission equipment, or wires for telephone, wireless service, cable television, or electricity service, or for lighting, the vertical portion of support structures for traffic control signals or devices, signage, infonnation kiosks, or other similar functions. 17. "Wireless ,facility" means equipment at a fixed location that enables the transmission of wireless communications or information of any kind between user equipment and a communications network, except that "wireless facility" does not include coaxial or fiberoptic cable that is not immediately adjacent to, or directly associated with, a particular antenna, 18. "Wireless service" means any fixed or mobile service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum and provided using a wireless facility. 19. "Wireless service provider" means a provider of wireless service. 20. "Wireless support structure" means a structure that exists at the time an application is submitted and is capable of supporting the attachment or installation of transmission equipment in compliance with applicable codes, including but not limited to water towers, buildings, and other structures, whether within or outside the public right-of-way, "Wireless support StrilCilire" does not include. a tower or existing base station. 2015 Acts, ch 120, §2, 10; 2017 Acts, ch 112, §1, 2 Section amides to applioution.c subrniffod on or after July 1. 2015; 2015 Acts, , 2518 tows Code Irifobasc 4 23 former s+ab ticri10'tamsmber.'das11 fanner s msec( ons 11 -- 3 rentarrbared Sub:iaation 14 £1rrn coded And renumbered Ss, 16 and former subsetion 13 ren.mbered as 20 8C3 Uniform rules and limitations — applications. in order to ensure uniformity across this state with respect to the consideration of every application, and notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, an authority shall not do any of the following: 1. Require an applicant to submit information about, or evaluate an applicant's business decisions with respect to, the applicant's designed service, customer demand for service, or quality of the applicant's service to or from a particular area or site, but may require propagation maps solely for the purpose of identifying the location of the coverage or capacity gap or need for applications for new towers in an area zoned residential. 2. u. Evaluate an application based on the availability of other potential locations for the placement or construction of a tower or transmission equipment. b. Require the applicant to establish other options for collocation instead of the construction of a new tower or modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change to an existing tower or existing base station, c. Notwithstanding paragraph "S ", an authority shall require an applicant applying for the construction of a new tower to provide an explanation regarding the reason for choosing the proposed location and the reason the applicant did not choose collocation. The explanation shall include a sworn statement from an individual who has responsibility over placement of the tower attesting that collocation within the area determined by the applicant to meet the applicant's radio frequency engineering requirements for the placement of a site would not result in the sante mobile service functionality, coverage, and capacity, is technically infeasible, or is economically burdensome to the applicant. 3. Dictate the type of transtnissic n equipment or technology to be used by the applicant or discriminate between different types of infrastructure or technology. 4. a. Require the removal of existing towers, base stations, or transrnission equipment, wherever located, as a condition to approval of an application, b. Notwithstanding paragraph "a", the authority may adopt reasonable rides regarding removal of abandoned towers or transmission equipment. 5. impose environmental testing, sampling, or monitoring requirements, or other compliance measures, for radio frequency emissions from transmission equipment that are categorically excluded under the federal communications commission's rules for radio frequency emissions pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(b)(1). 6. Establish or enforce regulations or procedures for radio frequency signal strength or the adequacy of service quality. 7. Reject an application, in whole or rn part, based on perceived or alleged environmental 5 24 effects of radio frequency emissions, as provided in 47 U.S.C. §332(e)(7X3)(iv). 8. Prohibit the placement of emergency power systems that comply with federal and state environmental requirements. 9, Charge an application fee, consulting fee, or other fee associated with the submission, review, processing, or approval of an application, unless the fee charged is in compliance with this section, Fees imposed by an authority or by a third -party entity providing review or technical consultation to the authority shall be based on actual, direct, and reasonable administrative costs incurred for the review, processing, and approval of an application. In no case shall total charges and fees exceed five hundred dollars for an eligible facilities request or three thousand dollars for an application for a new tower, for the initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on a wireless support structure, for a modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change to an existing tower or base station, or any other application to construct or place transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request An authority or any third -party entity shall not include within its charges any travel expenses incurred in the review of an application for more than one trip to the authority's jurisdiction, and an applicant shall not be required to pay or reimburse an authority for consultant or other third -party fees based on a contingency -based or result -based arrangement 10. Impose surety requirements, including bonds, escrow deposits., letters of credit, or any other type of financial surety, to ensure that abandoned or unused towers or transmission equipment can be removed, unless requirements are competitively neutral, nondiscriminatory, reasonable in amount, and commensurate with the historical record for Loa- facilities and structures that are abandoned. 11. Condition the approval of an application on the applicant's agreement to provide space on or near the tower, base station, or wireless support structure for authority or local governmental or nongovernmental services at less than the market rate for such space or to provide other services via the structure or facilities at less than the market rate for such services. 12. Limit the duration of the approval of an application, except that construction °flirt approved structure or facilities shall be commenced within two years of final approval, including the disposition of any appeals, and diligently pursued to eompletion. 13, Discriminate on the basis of the ownership, including ownership by the authority, of any property, structure, or tower when promulgating rules or procedures for siting wireless facilities or for evaluating applications. 2015 Acts; ch 120, §3, 10 Reterred to In §SC,4, SC.5 Section applies arypiiwiors sabre CS after July 1, 2015; 2015 Am, f.th 120, §10 8C.4 Uniform rules — new tower applications. 1. An authority may exercise zoning, land use, planning, and permitting authority withint authority's territorial boundaries with regard to the siting of new towers, subject to the provisions of this chapter and federal law. 2518 km. Oleo Infobase 6 25 2. An applicant that proposes to construct a new tower within the jurisdiction of an authority that has adopted planning and zoning regulations shall submit the necessary copies and attachments of the application to the appropriate authority and comply with applicable local ordinances concerning land use and the appropriate permitting processes. 3. All records, documents, and electronic data in the possession or custody of authority personnel are subject to chapter 22, Disclosure of such records shall be consistent with applicable state law. 4. An authority, within one hundred fifty calendar days of receiving an application to construct a new tower, unless another date is specified in a written agreement between the authority and the applicant, shall comply with the following provisions: a. Review the application for conformity with applicable local zoning regulations, building perntit requirements, and consistency with this chapter. An application is deemed to be complete unless the authority notifies the applicant in writing, within thirty calendar days of submission of the application, specifying the deficiencies in the application which, ' cured, would make the application complete. The authority's timeframe to review the application is tolled beginning the date the notice is sent The authority's timeframe of one hundred fifty days for review of the application begins running again when the applicant cures the specified deficiencies. Following the applicant's supplemental submission, the authority has ten days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice that specified deficiencies in the application. The authority's timeframe of one hundred fifty days to review the application is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices in conformance with this paragraph. The authority shall not include deficiencies in a second or subsequent notice that were not delineated in the original notice. The authority's timeframe for review does not toll if the authority requests information regarding any of the considerations an authority may not consider as described in section 8C.3. b. Make its final deoision to approve or disapprove the application, c. Advise the applicant in writing of its final decision, 5, Ifthe authority fails to act on an application to construct a new tower within the timeframe for review specified under subsection 4, the application shall be deemed approved. 6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affinnative disapproval of an application under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jurisdiction 2015 Acts, ch 120, §4, 10 c" or applie r' 'p silbraitted on or aikr 201,5; 2015 Acts, ch 120, §10 8C.5 Uniform rules for certain changes. 1. An authority may exercise zoning, land use, planning, and permitting authority within the authority's territorial boundaries with regard to an application for initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support strut:tures, for modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or for a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request, 2o$ Iowa, Cede Irzfabt&e 26 subject to the provisions of this chapter and federal law. 2. An applicant that proposes an initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support structures, a modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request, within the jurisdiction of an authority that has adopted planning and zoning ordinances, rules, or regulations shall submit the necessary copies and attachments of the application to the authority and comply with such applicable local ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning land use and zoning and the appropriate local permitting processes. 3. All records, including but not litinted to documents and electronic data, in the possession or custody of authority personnel are subject to chapter 22. Disclosure of such records shall be consistent with applicable state law. 4. An authority, within ninety calendar days of receiving an application pursuant to subsection 2, unless another date is specified in a written agreement between the authority and the applicant, shall comply with the following provisions: a. Review the application for conformity with applicable local zoning ordinances, rules, or regulations, building permit requirements, and consistency with this chapter. An application is deemed to be complete unless the authority notifies the applicant in writing within thirty calendar days of submission of the application, specifying the deficiencies in the application which, if cured, would make the application complete. The authority's timeframe for review is tolled beginning the date the notice is sent. The authority's ninety -day timeframe for review of the application begins running again when the applicant cures the specified deficiencies. Following the applicant's supplemental submission, the authority has ten days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice that specified deficiencies. The authority's ninety.day timeframe to review the application is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices in conformance with this paragraph. The authority shall not include deficiencies in a second or subsequent notice that were not delineated in the original notice. The authority's ninety -day timeframe for review does not toll if the authority requests inform tion regarding any of the considerations an authority may not consider as described in section 8C.3. b. Make its final decision to approve or disapprove the application. c. Advise the applicant in writing of its final decision. 5. If the authority fails to act on an application for an initial placement or installation of transmission equipment on wireless support structures, for &modification of an existing tower or existing base station that constitutes a substantial change, or for a request for construction or placement of transmission equipment that does not constitute an eligible facilities request within the review period specified under subsection 4, the application shall be deemed approved. 6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affirmative disapproval of an application under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jitrisdiction, 2015 Acts, ch 120, §5, 10 2018 Iowa Oa& Irtrobase 27 -Section applies to appliatic,ns stibraitt„ed on or after July 1, 2015; 2015 Acts, ch 8C.6 Use of public lands for towers and transmission equipment. 1. In accordance with other applicable laws, when entering into a lease with an applicant for the applicant's use of public lands, an authority shall offer the market rate value for use of that land. The term of the lease shall be for at least twenty years, but all or a portion of the land may be subject to release for public purposes after fifteen years. 2. a. lithe authority and the applicant cannot agree on the market rate for lease of the public land and cannot agree on the process to derive the market rate, the appraisals of a three-person panel of appraisers shall determine the market rate. Each party will appoint one appraiser and the two appointed appraisers shall select a third appraiser. Each appraiser shall independently appraise the appropriate market rate for lease of the land. The market rate shall be set at the median value between the highest and lowest market rates determined by the three independent appraisers. However, ifthe median between the appraisals of the appraisers appointed by each party is greater than or less than ten percent of the appraisal of the appraiser selected by the two appraisers, then the appraisal ofthe appraiser selected by the two appraisers shall determine the rate for the lease, Each appraiser shall send a copy of the appraisal to the authority and the applicant. The authority shall use the appraisal process under this paragraph to determine the lease rate for purposes of this subsection. b. An authority shall approve or reject the lease rate as determined by the appraisal process pursuant to paragraph " within fifteen days following completion and receipt of the appraisals obtained pursuant to paragraph "a". The authority's faiaure to reject the lease rate as determined by the appraisal process within fifteen days constitutes approval of die lease rate determined pursuant to paragraph 'a" as the market rate value for the use of the land for purposes of the lease between the authority and the applicant. c. The authority and applicant shall conclude the appraisal process within one hundred fifty cakandar days frOm the date the applicant first offered a proposed lease rate to the authority. cL lf using the three-person panel, each party shall bear the cost of its own appointed appraiser and equally share the cost of the third appraiser. 2015 Acts, eh 120, §6, 10 Section e'.o applications see -gritted on or ftcRay I, 2015; 2013 1.20,,,10 8C.7 Utility poles. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, an authority shall not mandate, require, or regulate the installation, location, or use of transmission equipment on a utility pole, 2015 Acts, ch 120, §7, 10 Section appries .pi ,o'1-' itZa Oil or after 'July 1, 201 5, J)' Acts, eh 120, §10 8C.7A Uniform rules for small wireless facilities — permit approvaL 1. a. Except as provided in this section, an authority shall not prohibit or restrict the siting of a small wireless facility. 2018 Iowa Code Infobase 28 b. For purposes of tlils section, "siting" means the mounting, installation, maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of a small wireless facility on or adjacent to any of the following: (1) An existing tower, utility pole, wireless support structure, or other existing structure. (2) A new utility pole of a similar height and appearance as an existing utility pole and which is located within a five -hundred -foot radius of the existing utility pole. (3) A replacement utility pole of a similar height and appearance as an existing utility pole and which is located within a five -hundred -foot radius of the existing utility pole. 2. a. An authority that has adopted planning and zoning regulations shall authorize the siting of a small wireless facility within its jurisdiction and shall not require a person to obtain a special or conditional land use permit for any of the following: (1) For siting the small wireless facility irt a public right-of-way or on an authority stricture located outside of a public right-of-way to the extent that such structure is already in use as a wireless support structure by supporting non -authority communications equipment that involve external attachments, provided that such structure is not listed on the national register of historic places, (2) For siting the small wireless facility on an existing tower, utility pole, or wireless support structure, regardless of the location, except for an property zoned and used exclusively for single-family residential use or within a previously designated area of historical significance pursuant to section 303.34. b. A small wireless facility may be classified as a special or conditional land use where such small vvireless facility is not sited in a manner as provided in paragraph "a". c. A person may install a new utility pole or wireless support structure in a public right-of-way subject to the provisions of this section.. An authority may reasonably limit the number of new utility poles or wireless support structures, consistent with the protection of public health, safety-, and welfare, and provided that such limitation does not have the effect of prohibiting or significantly impairing a wireless service provider's ability to provide wireless service within the area of a proposed TIM structure. However, an authority, may require a person to obtain a special, or conditional land use permit to install a new utility pole or wireless support structure for the siting of a small wireless facility on property zoned and used exclusively for single-farnily residential use or within a previously designated area of historical significance pursuant to section 303.34. 3, a. (1) An authority may require a person to obtain a building, electrical, or public right-of-way use permit for the siting of a small wireless facility to the extent that such permit is ofgeneral applicability and does not deny access to site the small wireless facility in a public right-of-way. Notwithstanding this paragraph, an authority shall not require a person to obtain a permit for the routine maintenance of a previously approved small wireless facility or the replacement of a previously approved small wireless facility with a facility of substantially similar height, weight, and wind and structural loading, provided, however, that an authority may require a person to obtain a permit to work itt a public right-of-way or on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way with the same terms and conditions provided for other 2018 Iowa Code heobase 10 29 commercial projects or uses in the public right-of-way or on the authority structure. (2) (a) Except as provided in subparagraph divisions (b) and (c), an authority shall not impos any fee or require any application or permit for the installation, placement, operation, niaintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility that is suspended on operator -owned cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. (b) An authority that has adopted a municipal or county code which requires an application or pennit for the installation, placement, operation, maintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility may continue the application or permit requirement subsequent to July 1, 2017. (c) (i) An authority may require a single -use right-of-way permit for the installation, placement, operation, maintenance, or replacement of a micro wireless facility if any of the following conditions apply: (A) The work is contained within a highway lane or requires the closure of a highway lane. (13) The work disturbs the pavement, shoulder, ditch, or operation of a highway. (C) The work involves placement of a micro wireless facility on a limited access right-of-way. (D) The work requires any specific precautions to ensure the safety of the traveling public or the protection or operation of public infrastructure and such. work was not authorized in, or will not be conducted in, the same time, place, or manner that is consistent with the approved terms of the existing permit for the facility or structure upon which the micro wireless facility is attached. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph division, "highway" nieans the same as defined in section 325A.1 b. An authority shall not require a person to apply for or enter into an individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the authority or any other entity for the siting of a small wireless facility on a utility pole located in a public right-of-way. However, an authority may, through the conditions set forth in a permit obtained pursuant to this so $4, ection„ do any of the following: (1) Establish nondis . 'ory, competitively neutral and commercially reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for such siting, which rates, terms, and conditions shall comply with the federal pole attachment requirements provided in 47 LI.S.C. §224 and any regulations promulgated thereunder. (2) Require compliance with the Iowa electrical safety code, the nationat electrical safety oode, applicable fire safety codes, and any building code or similar code of general applicability for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare that was adopted by an authority prior to the filing of the application, (3) Require that a small wireless facility reasonably match the aesthetics of au existing utility pole or wireless support structure that incorporates decorative elements. (4) Require compliance with section 306.46, subsection 1, and section 306.47. (5) Require that after the construction of a small wireless facility or new utility polo is completed in aceordance with all conditions under which the permit is granted, which conditions shall be consistent with this section, the owner of the small wireless facility- or new utility pole, 2(48 lawa,Cadc Infobosc 11 30 or the owner's successor in interest, shall maintain the small wireless facility or new utility pole at the expense of the owner or successor and if the authority subsequently undertakes any maintenance, public improvement project, or reconstruction of authority property or equipment which requires the modification, relocation, or reconstruction of the small wireless facility or new utility pole, such work and the costs thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner or successor. If the project necessitating the modification, relocation, or reconstruction of the small wireless facility or new utility pole is for a private commercial purpose, the authority may require the owner or successor to modify, relocate, or reconstruct the small wireless facility or new utility pole upon prepayment of the costs of such work by the private commercial entity whose project facilitates the need for such work. For purposes of this subparagraph, "new utility pole" means a new utility pole installed by a wireless service provider pursuant to this section solely for use as a wireless support structure and that is owned by the wireless service provider, c. Beginning with applications filed on or after September 1, 2017, an authority shall accept an application for, process, and issue a permit under this subsection as follows: (1) An applicant shall not be required to provide more information or pay a higher application fee, consulting fee, or other fee associated with the processing or issuance of a permit than the amount charged to a telecommunications service provider that is not a wireless service provider. The total amount of fees for processing or issuing a permit, including any fees charged by third parties, shall not exceed five hundred dollars for an application addressing no more than five small wireless facilities, and an additional fifty dollar for each small wireless facility addressed in an application in excess of five small wireless facilities. An applicant shall not be required to pay any additional fees or perform any services relating to the acceptance, processing, or issuance of a permit, nor provide any services unrelated to the siting of the small wireless facility or of a new, replacement, or modified utility pole on which a small wireless facility is sited. For purposes of this subparagraph, engineering and structural review are deemed to be related to the permitting of a small wireless facility. The total amount of fees shall be adjusted every five years to reflect any increases or decreases in the consumer price index, rounded to the nearest five dollars. (2) An authority shall approve or deny a permit application within ninety days following the submission of a completed application, Except as provided herein, an application shall be deemed approved if the authority fails to approve or deny the application within ninety days following the submission of a completed application. This period of time for the processiatg of a application may be extended upon mutual written agreement between the authority and the applicant. An applicant may address up to twenty-five small wireless facilities m a single application, provided, however, that a single application may only address small wireless facilities within a single two -mite radius consisting of substantially similar equipment to be placed on substantially similar types of wireless support structures or utility poles. In rendering a decision on an application addressing more than one small wireless facility, an authority may approve the application as to certain individual small wireless facilities while denying it as to others. An authority's denial of an individual small wireless facility or subset of small wireless facilities within an application is not a basis to deny the application as a whole. If an authority 31 receives applications for the approval ofmore than seventy-five small wireless facilities within a single seven-day period, whether from a single applicant or from multiple applicants, the authority may notify an applicant submitting any additional siting applications during that seven-day period that the authority is invoking its right to an automatic thirty -day extension for any additional siting application submitted during that seven-day period, (3) (a) An authority may only deny a completed application if any of the following apply: (i) The application fails to include reasonable information required by the authority and in accordance with this subsection. (ii) The application does not comply with the Iowa electrical safety code, the national electrical safety code, applicable fire safety codes, or any building code or similar code of general applicability for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare that was adopted by an authority prior to the filing of the application. (iii) The application would result in the authority being noncompliant with the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. (iv) (A) A licensed engineer selected by the applicant or the authority certifies that siting the small vvireless facility as proposed would compromise the structural safety of, or preclude the essential purpose of, the utility pole or wireless support structure in the public right-of-way on which it is proposed to be sited and any of the following conditions apply; (I) The applicant fails to redesign the small wireless facility in a manner determined necessary by the engineer to make the existing utility pole or wireless support structure structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless facility. (11) The applicant fails to modify the utility pole or wireless support structure to make the structure structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless facility, (III) The applicant fails to replace the utility pole or wireless support structure with a utility pole or wireless support structure that is structurally sound for the siting of the small wireless (IV) The applicant fails to propose an alternative location for the siting of the small wireless facility. (B) If an applicant chooses to Modify or replace a utility pole or wireless support structure to make the structure structurally sound for the siting of a small wireless facility, the applicant shall pay or advance to the authority the costs of modifying or replacing the utility pole or wireless support structure with a utility pole or wireless support structure that would safely support the small wireless facility and preserve the essential purpose of the utility pole or wireless support structure. (v) The application seeks approval of a new small wireless facility, utility pole, or wireless support structure that would impair, interfere with, or preclude the safe and effective use of facilities already located in the public right-of-way for pedestrian, vehicular, utility, or other authority public right-of-way purposes. (vi) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility outside the public right-of-way that would impair, interfere with, or preclude the safe and effective use °fan authority structure or property for a public purpose. 1018 Iowa Cade Infobue 13 32 (vii) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility on a wireless support structure used exclusively for emergency communications equipment, (viii) The application seeks approval for the siting of a small wireless facility on a utility pole that is the vertical portion of a support structure for a traffic control signal or device, and the authority determines that the utility pole lacks sufficient space or load capacity for the proposed siting or the small wireless facility cannot be sited on the utility pole without impairing the public health, safety, or welfare. (b) An authority denying an application shall document the basis for the denial, including the specific code provisions or standards on which the denial is based, and provide the applicant with such documentation on or before the date the application is denied. (c) An applicant whose application is denied shall have an opportunity to cure any deficiencies identified by the authority as the basis for the denial and to submit a revised application within thirty days following the date of denial without paying an additional fee, The authority shall approve or deny a revised application within thirty days following submission. The authority shall not identify any deficiencies in a second or subsequent denial that were not identified in the original denial. (4) An authority shall not limit the duration of a permit issued for the siting of a small wireless facility in a public right-of-way pursuant to this subsection, and shall not limit the duration of a permit issued for the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way to any period less than ten years, with one automatic five ear renewal, provided, however, that the owner oldie small wireless facility may terminate the permit upon providing ninety days' notice to the authority. The construction of a small wireless facility permitted pursuant to this subsection shall commence no later than two years following the date that the permit is issued, or two years after any appeals are exhausted. (5) An authority shall not impose a moratorium on the processing or issuance of permits under this subsection. (6) An authority shall process and issue permits on a nondiscriminatory basis, An authority shall receive an application for, process, and issue a permit for the siting of a small wireless facility in a manner substantially comparable to the permitting of other applicants within the jurisdiction of the authority, and may not impose discriminatory licensing standards for persons siting small wireless facilities. 4. The annual recurring rate charged by an authority for the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority utility pole shall not exceed the rate computed by the federal communications commission for telecommunications pole attachments in 47 C.F.R. §1.1409(e)(4 5. a. An authority shall authorize the siting of a small wireless facility on an authority structure located outside of a public right-of-way to the same extent the authority authorizes access to such structures for other non -authority communications equipment that involve external attaChments, and inay authorize the siting even if the authority has not previously permitted such access. b. A siting authorized under this subsection shall be subject to reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as provided in one or more agreements between the authority and the wireless service 2018 Iwa Cede Infobase 14 33 provider. Notwithstanding chapter 4$tlA, the annual recurriiag rate for such siting as charged by an authority shall not exceed the 1 (1) The amount charged for a similar commercial project or use to occupy a similar area of space on similarly situated property. (2) The projected cost to the authority resulting from the siting. 6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an authority, either by its affirmative action on a permit, term or condition, or rate under the provisions of this section or by its inaction, may bring an action for review in any court of competent jurisdiction, except that if the final action of the authority was the denial of a conditional or special use permit pursuant to this section, the party must first seek review under section 333.13 or 414.10, as applicable, 7. This section only addresses an authority's approval of zoning and building permits and the rates for the use of public rights -of way and authority structures, This section shall not modify the rights and obligations of a nonauthority owner of a utility pole or a municipal utility that owns a utility pole, under 47 C.F.R §1.1401 et seq., and the Iowa electrical safety code. 2017 Acts, ch 112, §3; 2017 Acts. ch 170, §22 Referred to in §8C.7C NEW vection 8C.7B Small wireless facilities --- violation and removal. L A. public utility that owns or controls a utility pole on which a small wireless facility is sited in alleged violation of this chapter or the Iowa electrical safety code shall notify the owner of the small wireless facility of the alleged violation, in writing or by any other method agreed upon by lite parties in writing. the notice shall include the following infoniiation: . The address and location where .the alleged violation occurred. b. A description of the alleged violation, . Suggested corrective action, 2. Upon the receipt of notice of an alleged violation, the recipient of such notice shall respond to the public utility within sixty days in writing or by any other method agreed upon by the parties in writing. The response shall include the following inforination: a. 4. statement disclosing whether or not the recipient of the notice is the owner of the small. winless facility at issue. b. A statement disclosing that the owner disputa that the alleged violation has occurred, if applicable. c. A plan for corrective action if the owner does not dispute that the violation has occurred. d. A statement disclosing whether the violation has been corrected, if the owner does not dispute that the violation has occurred. 3. The owner of a small wireless facility in alleged violation of this chapter or the Iowa electrical safety code shall correct the alleged violation within one hundred eighty days alter receiving notice of the violation unless, for good cause shown, a delay for taking corrective action is appropriate or if the parties otherwise agree in writing to extend the time required to take corrective action. Good cause for a delay in corrective action shall include but is not limited 201E Iowa Cade Ithbast 34 to a dispute over whether the recipient of the notice is the owner of the small wireless facility at issue, a dispute over whether the alleged violation has occunecl, or if taking corrective action within the required time flame is not possible due to circumstances which are beyond the control of the owner of the small wireless facility. The public utility and owner of the small wireless facility shall cooperate in determining an efficient and cost-effective solution to correct an alleged violation. 4, a Notwithstanding subsections 1 through 3, in the event of an emergency, an authority or public utility shall contact the owner of the small wireless facility at issue and provide the owner with a reasonable opportunity, given the nature of the emergency, to alleviate such emergency or participate with the authority or public utility to make any repairs necessary to alleviate such emergency. If the owner of the small wireless facility does not respond in a timely manner, as determined by the authority or public utility given the nature of the emergency, the authority or public utility may remove or make alterations to the small wireless facility as necessary to ensure public safety, b. For purposes of this subsection, "emergency" means exigent and extraordinary circumstances under which the physical or electrical failure of a utility pole, wireless support structure, or small wireless facility threatens imminent physical harm to persons or there is a substantial likelihood of imminent and significant harm to property. 5. If the parties ciumot resolve a dispute after following the procedures provided in this section, any party may file an action concerning an alleged violation under this section in the district courtfor the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, for any appropriate remedy, including the removal ofa small wireless facility deemed by the court to be in violation of this chapter or the Iowa electrical safety code. However, this section shall not preclude a party from bringing an action pursuant to the Iowa electrical safety code or 47 C'.F.R. §1.1401 et seq, or the application ofa dispute resolution process set forth in an applicable pole attachment agreement between the parties. 6. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit the ability ofa public utility and the owner of a small wireless facility to voluntarily enter into a pole attachment agreement that establishes different terms for the siting of a small wireless facility or the resolution ofa dispute regarding such afacility. 2017 Acts, oh 112, §4 NEW watun 8C.7C Height limitations. 1, A new, replacement, or modified utility' pole or wireless support structure installed in a public right-of-way located within the city limits of an incorporated city for the purpose of siting a wireless facility, including a small wireless facility under the provisions of this chapter shall not exceed the greater of ten feet in height above the tallest utility pole existing on or before July 1, 2017, located within five hundred feet of the new, replacement, or modified utility pole in the same public right-of-way, or forty feet in height above ground level. Except as provided in section 8C.7A, subsection 2, paragraph "c", an authority shall not require a special or 2515 wCoCalc Infobase 16 35 conditional use permit for the installation of a utility pole or wireless support structure that complies with the height limitations of this subsection. 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1, a person may coastruca, modify, or maintain a utility pole or wireless support structure along, across, and under a public right-of-way in excess of the size limits provided in subsection 1, to the extent Remitted by the authority's applicable zoning regulations. 3. A person sh,111 comply with nondiscriminatory undergrounding requirements that prohibit wireless service providers from installing structures in a public right-of-way without prior zoning approval in areas designated as an underground district pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted by an authority prior to the date the application is filed or in areas zoned and used for single-family residential use, provided that such requirements shall not prohibit the replacernent of existing structures, 4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit the ability of a public utility to install a utility pole for the purposes of electric utility transmission or distribution within a public right-of-way subject to an authority's planning and zoning regulations. 2017 Acts, eh 112, §5 NEW wctian 8C.8 Application and construction. This chapter shall not be construed as: L Prohibiting all airport, aviation authority, or tramicipality from administering and enforcing airport zoning pursuant to the provisions of chapter 329 for the protection of navigable airspace. 2. Infringing upon the jurisdiction of a commission, as defined in section 303.20, to approve or deny applications for proposed alterations to exterior features within an area designated as an area of historical significance. 3. Infringing upon the jurisdiction of a city or county, or any other entity authorized by statute, to approve or deny applications for proposed alterations to exterior features of designated local historic landmarks. 2015 Acts, ch 120, §8, 10 F.)ern appii4$ appllcaUms submittzd or or ailuly 1, 2015', 2015 Aq.ts, ch 120, §10 8C.9 Repeal. This chapter is repealed July 1.2022. 2015 Acts, ch 120, §9, 10; 2017 Acts, ch 112, §6 Scction ainen..,kd lows, Cade larobnAt 17 36