PPF & OEC Comment on Proposed Revised County Codes for 5G

15 July 2019

Commissioner Mark Ozias, Chair
Commissioner Randy Johnson Vice Chair
Commissioner Bill Peach
Clallam County Courthouse
4^th and Lincoln Streets
Port Angeles WA 98362

Dear Commissioners:
Protect the Peninsula’s Future and Olympic Environmental Council submit these comments on the proposed revised county codes for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF). Both organizations are long standing federally recognized nonprofits registered in Clallam County WA.

GENERAL COMMENTS
Overall, the proposed language, barring certain passages, appear to strengthen the present WCF code. Our main concern, in line with many in our community, is 5G. We do not want 5G in our community. A moratorium or a ban on 5G should be included. This powerful fifth generation is unneeded. 4G has been and can continue to be adequate. Even this generation has negatively affected many people; expansion of it and the implementation of 5 G would be more harmful, and clustering of either on short poles/small cell antennas is too much RF output.

Given this, and the newness of 5G, it is too early for a compilation of impacts it will have and without this, it should not be acceptable.  

As well, meteorologists are in opposition to 5G and view it as “deeply concerning”. In their association’s letter to The Register, they are concerned 5G will disrupt weather satellite signals and delay timely weather information to the public, especially in times of critical situation.   https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48772008

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
List the code sections on page 1. Follow it with the definition section.

Section 2. Section 33.49.200: Exemptions (1) “reasonable” is not definitive. Be more specific or delete the term.

Section 4. Section 33.49.220 (g) So that nothing falls through the cracks, the applicant should be notified within 10 days if the submission provides all the information or does not. Not just the latter.

Section 5. Section 33.49.230 (1) The design feature should not rest on economic reasons. If a company is financially able to invest in this industry, it should not be able to claim an economic hardship when it comes to designing for collocation.
There should be an independent third party, not suggested by the industry, paid for by the company, to determine whether technical or physical collocation reasons are not feasible.

(2a) Is appropriate camouflaging being enforced now?

(5) Should pole lights be permitted, the light should point downward and be shielded to prevent skyward glare. Yellow hued bulbs are the least intrusive to wildlife.

Section 6. Section 33.49.240. (1e) There should be a 1000 foot setback from residential homes rather than the proposed 50 ft. RFs at 50 ft could scatter beyond that perimeter and limit a safe walking distance from one’s home. It also could devalue the homeowners land. There should be none in residential communities where there are homes and apartments.

(1g) Small cell antennas shall be located at a minimum height of at least 32 feet. That is three stories high. Do you mean at a maximum height? Please clarify.

(2a) A single permit may be used for multiple distributed antenna…

If meant in just one location, that is understandable. But if meant around different areas, this is too permissive.

(2b) Again, too permissive even for clustering small cells.

Define “contiguous areas”.   These could run on for blocks under one permit.

Section 8. Sec. 33.49.400 Priority of locations  

(6) should be deleted. Water towers are not a good idea. Traffic signal poles are not a good idea; people have to sit and wait for lights to change and that means absorbing RFs. On top of buildings can affect the people working or living in them.

Section 11. Section 33.49.510   General Standards

(1) The existing structure may be replaced with a similar diameter pole not exceeding 20 additional feet in height. This height allowance of two stories is excessive.
10% of 10 feet. Is “or” intended rather than “of”?

(3) How strong or weak are the FCC standards/

(4d) The proponent may be exempt from this requirement; provided, the proponent is contractually responsible to the landowner for removal of the structure at all times during the life of the WEF.  The homeowner may die or move. A new owner may decline to carry this contract. What then? It is better for the proponent to put money for removal upfront and kept in an account until removal is necessary.

(6) Hazardous or toxic materials. This should stop with the first sentence: No hazardous or toxic substances shall be discharged on the site of any [WCF].

Section 12. Section 33.49.520 Performance standards is amended to read as follows:

(1)a 20 ft / 2 stories of added height to the support structure is too high. Limit it to 19 ft.

(1bi) CF maximum ht is 200 ft. Reduce this to 150 ft.

(2d) Keep the current language that allows 1000 ft setback from schools, playgrounds and historic sites, not just from schools. Include a 1000 ft setback from residential homes and apartments.

(3 d,f,g) Landscaping and Screening

(d) There should be no reduction screening support towers. The point of screening and camouflaging is to make the poles, etc. blend in with the natural scenery.

(f) The natural canopy cover height should not be reduced.; definitely not 50%.

(g) Variances should not be given. Variances diminish requirements and make regulations fruitless.

Retain the current Security and Lighting language that specifies fencing.

Section 18. Section 33.49.580   Pre-application meeting

Line 2. Replace “encouraged to meet with property owners within 1000 ft of the proposed WCF support tower…” with “must meet…” However, no tower should be within 1000 ft of residential sites.

Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Schanfald
Board Member of PPF and OEC