Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
The Edmonds City Council on Tuesday night had its first discussion on an issue that has become a topic of conversation in many communities: the installation of small-cell facilities that could provide faster 5G technology for wireless customers.
Attorney Angela Tinker of Lighthouse Law Group, which provides city attorney services for Edmonds, noted that New Cingular Wireless is the first carrier to request permission to place small-cell wireless facilities in the city. Tuesday night’s discussion focused on a master permit needed for such facilities, and that requires city council approval. However, two other site-specific permits are also required — a building permit and a right-of-way construction permit, both to be approved by administrative staff.
The master permit is the general authority that the city grants a telecommunications provider to place facilities in the city’s right of way. The site-specific permits focus on the city’s aesthetic review of the facilities, as allowed by federal law.
In April 2019, the Edmonds City Council unanimously approved an ordinance governing the aesthetics of small cell wireless facilities in the city’s right of way; however, federal regulations don’t allow local or state governments to prohibit their installation altogether. The City of Portland, along with dozens of other local governments, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding local governments’ ability to regulate 5G facilities, and that matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tinker noted that “the FCC is tasked with accommodating competing public objectives” — protecting public heath and safety while ensuring “the rapid development of an efficient and uniform telecommunications network providing effective and widely accessible serve at a reasonable cost.”
Cities are allowed to manage the right of way on which the facilities are placed, and this includes items like coordinating construction schedules and determining insurance, bonding and indemnity requirements, Tinker said. The master permit addresses many of these right-of-way management issues, and it has a five-year term subject to renewal by the city council. It also specifies that New Cingular reimburse the city for administrative costs incurred and that it will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance and assume risk of damage to its facilities.
According to Tinker, while the city can’t charge a franchise fee, it can charge rents in limited circumstances, such as if the carrier is placing a new structure or certain types of replacement structures in the rights of ways. The FCC has issued “defacto caps” on the amount cities can charge, and in any case those rents wouldn’t apply to the New Cingular application.
While New Cingular and the city agree on nearly all of the terms of the master permit, there is one area of contention — an indemnity, which Tinker described as “a promise to protect the city. A commitent to take financial responsibility for compensating someone if someone gets injured as a result of the provider conducting its business in our streets.”
The city and its staff is recommending “a very broad indemnity — so broad that it specifically addresses RF (radio frequency) emissions,” Tinker explained. New Cingular, however, wants an indeminity “that does not specifically address that,” she added.
The city is asking for this provision because “it could be expensive for the city to defend such a suit, even if it was a meritless one,” Tinker said. Defending and satisfying any lawsuits, she stressed, “should be the responsibility of the providers and not the responsibility of the city.”
Tinker did note, however, that the council can’t deny permits based on health concerns, including those related to radio frequency emissions. Only the federal government has that authority. “Local officials’ hands are largely tied in this area,” she said.
Over the years, she said, the FCC has adopted radio frequency standards that limit the amount of radiation that can be emitted from wireless transmitters and has created a framework to ensure compliance with those limits. On Dec. 4, 2019, the FCC issued a new RF Order stating that existing RF exposure limits should remain unchanged.
Tinker then briefly reviewed the other aspects of siting the small-cell facility in the right of way, including the facility location and preferences, which the city approved in April 2019. In order of hierarchy, the placement preferences are as follows:
– A hollow power pole with full/partial concealment
– A freestanding small cell facility with full concealment
– Installation on top of a wood power pole
– Installation in a communication space on a wood power pole
– A strand mount attachment to wires
The applicant must show that the top preference in the hierarchy is infeasible before moving down the list to consider others, Tinker said.
In its application, New Cingular Wireless has proposed placing one small facility as shown in the before and after photos below. However, that design is still being negotiated, Public Works and Utilities Director Phil Williams said.
Williams also noted that this is likely the first of many small-cell applications the city will receive from various carriers across Edmonds. “We’re expecting to see a lot of these and there could be multiple ones on a given block,” he said.
Here are the next steps in the process for the small-cell wireless application, during consideration at three more council meetings:
May 25 — A question-and-answer session and presentations from the city and New Cingular Wireless
June 8 — A public hearing
June 15 — Final action
In other action, the council Tuesday night:
– Held a public hearing on the city’s 2022-2027 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. No one testified during the hearing and the council agreed to continue it to next week so that citizens have additional time to weigh in.
-Approved a city department reorganization proposal that moves the clerk’s office to the administrative services department (formerly the finance department), plus associated job description and compensation changes.
– Heard an annual report from Zachor Thomas, which provides prosecuting attorney services for the city.
– Issued a resolution honoring the life of Natalie Shippen, the first woman elected to the Edmonds City Council, serving from 1971-75.
— During the council’s consent agenda, approved Mayor Mike Nelson’s appointments of Richard Kuehn and Judi Gladstone to the Edmonds Planning Board.
The council ran out of time to get through its agenda, so two items were delayed to a future meeting: Consideration of next steps for developing additional tree regulations and further discussion on the council’s process for reviewing Citizens Housing Commission recommendations.
The delay was the result of a prolonged discussion at the start of the meeting about two items that appeared on the council’s consent agenda (meaning no public discussion), with Councilmember Diane Buckshnis arguing they should have appeared on the regular agenda for more public exposure. The items were the 2020 report on the Transportation Benefit District and the March 2021 quarterly financial report.
Buckshnis stated that residents should have the benefit of seeing those presentations, and noted that council’s finance committee — of which she is a member — recommended that both items appear on the regular council agenda. Her request was supported by both Councilmembers Kristiana Johnson and Vivian Olson, but opposed by the council majority, who argued that interested residents can always watch the taped version of the committee meetings, available on the city’s website, if they want more details.
Councilmember Olson pointed to the disagreement as an example of how the council “really missed the boat by not having a council retreat. There are a lot of philosophical things that keep coming up that we don’t have resolution on where we stand as a council.”
Olson said that her understanding of the process, as indicated in the code, is that an item reviewed during a council committee either goes to the consent agenda with full committee consent or it is placed on the business meeting agenda for consideration by the full council. “For us to constantly be trying to put things on consent if they’ve been sent from committee to go to full council is contrary to good process and we do this every time,” Olson noted.
While Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas acknowledged Olson’s point, she said that in her eleven-and-a-half years on the council, “I have never seen so many items pulled off the agenda as I’ve seen in the last year and a half. And I think that needs to be looked at too.”
You can watch the entire council meeting at this link.
— By Teresa Wippel
Thank you City of Edmonds for seeking to be defended, indemnified, and held harmless from the installation. That is not a health concern, it is good business practice. C’mon Lighthouse Law, back ’em up!
Don’t cave Council, it’s a contract issue, not a health concern. If the provider wants to walk away from that contractual arrangement, that’s their business.
In the meantime, just reject the application for lack of compliance (the required safety signage is not visible or even noted in the “after” image).
Also, remember with regard to the Councils “unanimous” approval of an ordinance in 2019, it was not because the technology was enthusiastically embraced by Council. Rather, Lighthouse Law told Council they could not stop providers’ access being granted by the FCC, only regulate the appearance of such installations, and even then, only if such legislation was timely. In order to have a chance at regulating future installs, and based on their attorney’s statements, the Council unanimously approved regulations as to the appearance of such installations.
This is apparent as Council simultaneously passed a resolution to support federal legislation toward rescinding the FCC rule on 5G deployment. This is not for faster phones, this is for a virtual web to support the “internet of things.” As Phil said, there could be multiple of these on a block, so why are they only proposing one? This application appears to be testing the waters, the beginning move in a game of chess, to see how City of Edmonds responds.
I trust our Council to continue to do the right thing in this arena, but don’t expect Councilmembers to be vocal about this. The City’s defense will be that the provider can’t point the finger and say, “But the City said no because of a health concern.” It’s a contractual business deal; let them play chess and don’t be dismayed by their silence or lack of participation in our justified frustration at further government-imposed (health) risks.
I knew a children’s doctor in Hawaii years ago who studied areas where groups of children had various cancers. Dr Wilkinson proved it was very clear on the mapping that areas where there were high voltage and / or cell towers there were MUCH higher incidences of cancers in children. He did not study this for adults as he was a specialist for children. He’s sense retired but I’ll never forget that map and the markings. It was so scary. I hope someone in the city planning looks into any studies about this that are more current as safety is most important.
This 5G needs to be stopped now! It accomplishes nothing other than making Humans sick. Being able to download entertainment a fraction of a second faster does not seem to be worth the risk. I am curious to know why the Federal Government will not allow cities, etc to ban this altogether?
According to Professor John William Frank from the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh, the transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, could cause “suspected adverse health effects.”“A growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally [are] calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety,” the professor wrote.
5G uses much higher frequency (between 3 to 300GHz) radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new – and relatively under-evaluated, from a safety standpoint – supportive infrastructure technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, Frank said in an opinion piece published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
From T_HQ January 2021
Edmonds Community Contact your Representatives and ASK questions now, before it is too late.
No way…this is much too dangerous. Remember back a couple years…NY maybe when these were screaming all over that city. It was very scary. We have enough of the regular ones above ground everywhere. At least up here. I will check Downtown Bowl…are they underground there?
Question 1, if I chose (I did) to purchase a home in an area with all utilities underground (to avoid visual blight), will I be protected from these ugly poles/boxes?
Question 2, is the “plan” that each different company can have their own pole/box adjacent to any/my property if there is sufficient unused ROW? (Related question, how many companies are there, 5, 10, or more?)
Council, please help us. Please tell me these things can be banned based on aesthetics for those who have chosen to live in areas with undergroung utilities. Then ban it for aesthetics for those with views. Then ban it everywhere, because new towers or boxes will be ugly everywhere, especially for those individuals who find multiple companies wanting to locate near their property.
Question 3, can’t they put the darn things in manhole covers or something that we don’t have to look at? (Obviously does not change the health risk, but it would sure help the aesthetics).
I smell a lawsuit…Gee I wonder where is the area where all the poles and boxes and wires are banned now. Where is the area in Edmonds that has only underground things like this. NO way will I stand still and watch this town try and keep these out of previously…not now…another time another vote…bans. If they do this it better be all over Edmonds and I mean all of Edmonds. The embers are brightening…