Pacific Grove Protect Our Kids
Donation protected
We need your help! The Planning Commission approved a Verizon cell tower that is on a public right of way but impacts the safety of children at Forest Grove and PGHS. In fact it's close to the Pre-K classroom where our five year olds will be!!!
The original location was a public right if way in front of homes and in front of the high school sonthis less visual spot but just as horrible, was seen as a lesser evil.
Their only reason “the high school kids are losing bandwidth during lunch and right after school”! (The school district has confirmed they do NOT need it)
The City of Monterey made the right choice for their community and declined cell towers close to their schools. We are looking for our Xity leadership to protect our community as well.
Cell towers:
1) cause cancer & infertility
2) lower the value of your house and make it harder to cell
3) look awful
4) are hazardous to wildlife & trees/plants
5) more of them are NOT necessary
Like us and share information please www.facebook.com/ProtectOurKidsPG .
Would you want one in front of your house? Do you want one feet from where your child spends 6+ hours per day?
Check to see how many are close to your house already (way more than you think). www.antennasearch.com
We are inviting and imploring neighbors to help us raise the appeal fee.
Verizon’s coverage is already sufficient and our population is not increasing.
While the deciding factor can't be health based, the fact that this new location has moved the harmful tower even closer to the classrooms of our high schoolers and now, even our kinder and elementary school children.
So similar to when we started protecting ourselves from Tobacco with no-smoking areas as that WAS legal, reasons the application can be legally declined.
City Attorney Conference of the League of California Cities, disagrees with staff and City Council insistence that PG must approve.
1. Capacity is not a coverage issue which is what Section 253 of the Federal Telecom Act protects.
2. The applicant shared that the tower direction is changing to offer capacity to the high school and shopping center. However we heard from PG Principal Matt Bell and WE as a community passed the bond which has allowed for even faster capacity for the school. Further the shopping center declined to have the tower in their property.
3. This tower is a fire hazard at this location and if you think that's highly unlikely, ask the residents in Southern California who lost their homes.
4. ADA - another federal regulation, protects those who are sensitive.
5. There is considerable documentation on the harmful effects of cell towers on butterflies and as an endangered species and butterfly town USA, if we won't protect our children, please protect the butterflies.
❌The League of California Cities City Attorney conferences provide expert guidance on important municipal issues, and attorneys from the nationally known law firm Best Best & Krieger conducted workshops on wireless issues in 2012 and 2015. ✅ In these presentations, they discussed Section 253 of the federal Telecom Act and the ability of cities to regulate the public right of way (PROW).
❌Best Best and Krieger attorneys disagree with city staff’s statement that “[t]he City may not prohibit the installation of wireless facilities on utility poles along the public right-of-way, under the Federal Telecommunications Act Section 253.”(p. 3)
✔️Here is what Section 253 says:
From the 1996 Telecommunications Act
47 U.S. Code § 253 - Removal of barriers to entry
(a)IN GENERAL
No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
(b)STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
(c)STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY
Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.
(d)PREEMPTION
If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.
❌The Telecommunications Act was written in 1996 to promote cellular infrastructure roll-out. “Entry” was a major issue in 1996 for the industry. Many people did not use cell phones, telecom carriers had significantly smaller wireless footprints and coverage in the United States, there was significant opposition to cell towers largely due to health effects, and dropped calls were the norm.
❌Now, twenty-two years later, wireless coverage is here. Coverage has gone from 2G to 3G to 4G, and now 5G is in the wings. Company coverage maps show nearly universal coverage in most areas of the country. The context for this section – “Barriers to entry” -- is not an issue any longer. The roll-out has already happened.
❌This community has not prohibited Verizon or other telecom companies from providing service. There is excellent coverage in this particular neighborhood. Section 253 says that local governments can manage the PROW as long as it does not prohibit service.
✔️Each of these proposed locations are within the city’s jurisdiction. This project is at odds with the city’s general plan. The city is within its authority to regulate the right of way and potential uses, and it is NOT prohibiting Verizon from providing service by enforcing city rules.
❌Pivotal to any Planning Commission decision is that there is excellent Verizon coverage and no significant coverage gap in this neighborhood. Coverage has been proven with a site test, Verizon customer testimony, Verizon personnel sales presentations, and Verizon coverage maps. Since great service exists, Verizon/Sequoia must comply with city and state rules and cannot argue a prohibition of service if this project is denied.
❌California Environmental Quality Act requires regulatory bodies to consider the whole of the action when hearing a project . That includes future collocations and towers allowed by an approval.
The original location was a public right if way in front of homes and in front of the high school sonthis less visual spot but just as horrible, was seen as a lesser evil.
Their only reason “the high school kids are losing bandwidth during lunch and right after school”! (The school district has confirmed they do NOT need it)
The City of Monterey made the right choice for their community and declined cell towers close to their schools. We are looking for our Xity leadership to protect our community as well.
Cell towers:
1) cause cancer & infertility
2) lower the value of your house and make it harder to cell
3) look awful
4) are hazardous to wildlife & trees/plants
5) more of them are NOT necessary
Like us and share information please www.facebook.com/ProtectOurKidsPG .
Would you want one in front of your house? Do you want one feet from where your child spends 6+ hours per day?
Check to see how many are close to your house already (way more than you think). www.antennasearch.com
We are inviting and imploring neighbors to help us raise the appeal fee.
Verizon’s coverage is already sufficient and our population is not increasing.
While the deciding factor can't be health based, the fact that this new location has moved the harmful tower even closer to the classrooms of our high schoolers and now, even our kinder and elementary school children.
So similar to when we started protecting ourselves from Tobacco with no-smoking areas as that WAS legal, reasons the application can be legally declined.
City Attorney Conference of the League of California Cities, disagrees with staff and City Council insistence that PG must approve.
1. Capacity is not a coverage issue which is what Section 253 of the Federal Telecom Act protects.
2. The applicant shared that the tower direction is changing to offer capacity to the high school and shopping center. However we heard from PG Principal Matt Bell and WE as a community passed the bond which has allowed for even faster capacity for the school. Further the shopping center declined to have the tower in their property.
3. This tower is a fire hazard at this location and if you think that's highly unlikely, ask the residents in Southern California who lost their homes.
4. ADA - another federal regulation, protects those who are sensitive.
5. There is considerable documentation on the harmful effects of cell towers on butterflies and as an endangered species and butterfly town USA, if we won't protect our children, please protect the butterflies.
❌The League of California Cities City Attorney conferences provide expert guidance on important municipal issues, and attorneys from the nationally known law firm Best Best & Krieger conducted workshops on wireless issues in 2012 and 2015. ✅ In these presentations, they discussed Section 253 of the federal Telecom Act and the ability of cities to regulate the public right of way (PROW).
❌Best Best and Krieger attorneys disagree with city staff’s statement that “[t]he City may not prohibit the installation of wireless facilities on utility poles along the public right-of-way, under the Federal Telecommunications Act Section 253.”(p. 3)
✔️Here is what Section 253 says:
From the 1996 Telecommunications Act
47 U.S. Code § 253 - Removal of barriers to entry
(a)IN GENERAL
No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
(b)STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
(c)STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY
Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.
(d)PREEMPTION
If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.
❌The Telecommunications Act was written in 1996 to promote cellular infrastructure roll-out. “Entry” was a major issue in 1996 for the industry. Many people did not use cell phones, telecom carriers had significantly smaller wireless footprints and coverage in the United States, there was significant opposition to cell towers largely due to health effects, and dropped calls were the norm.
❌Now, twenty-two years later, wireless coverage is here. Coverage has gone from 2G to 3G to 4G, and now 5G is in the wings. Company coverage maps show nearly universal coverage in most areas of the country. The context for this section – “Barriers to entry” -- is not an issue any longer. The roll-out has already happened.
❌This community has not prohibited Verizon or other telecom companies from providing service. There is excellent coverage in this particular neighborhood. Section 253 says that local governments can manage the PROW as long as it does not prohibit service.
✔️Each of these proposed locations are within the city’s jurisdiction. This project is at odds with the city’s general plan. The city is within its authority to regulate the right of way and potential uses, and it is NOT prohibiting Verizon from providing service by enforcing city rules.
❌Pivotal to any Planning Commission decision is that there is excellent Verizon coverage and no significant coverage gap in this neighborhood. Coverage has been proven with a site test, Verizon customer testimony, Verizon personnel sales presentations, and Verizon coverage maps. Since great service exists, Verizon/Sequoia must comply with city and state rules and cannot argue a prohibition of service if this project is denied.
❌California Environmental Quality Act requires regulatory bodies to consider the whole of the action when hearing a project . That includes future collocations and towers allowed by an approval.
Fundraising team (2)
Toula Hubbard
Organizer
Pacific Grove, CA
Katie Ryan
Beneficiary
Amy Fallavena
Team member
