WHO WE ARE
We are a neighborhood association made up of Napa residents whose primary focus is persuading/forcing our local government to regulate close proximity microwave radiating antennas (CPMRAs) to protect public health and safety, the environment, Napa's aesthetics, and property values, starting with the 28 the Napa City Council approved at its November 5th, 2019 meeting and the 26 that are pending approval.
WHAT WE DO
WE INFORM OTHERS ABOUT THE NEGATIVE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WIRELESS RADIATION, CITING THE THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AVAILABLE, AND THE BENEFITS OF USING WIRED CONNECTIONS INSTEAD.
WE ADVOCATE FOR AN UPDATE TO THE CITY AND COUNTY'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CLOSE PROXIMITY MICROWAVE RADIATING ANTENNAS (CPMRAS), USING THIS MODEL ORDINANCE.
WE ARE WORKING TO OVERTURN THE PERMITS FOR THE 28 APPROVED CPMRAS IN NAPA AND TO STOP THE APPROVAL OF THE 26 PENDING ONES.
"The Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) RF energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all possible usage conditions. FCC set an RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones in 1996, based on recommendations from federal health and safety agencies and international organizations. These international organizations have updated their exposure limit recommendation in recent years, based on new research, and this new limit has been widely adopted by other countries, including countries in the European Union."
U.S. Government Accountability Office
COURT RULINGS FOR LOCAL CONTROL
MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco (2005)
Local governments cannot prohibit wireless facilities but can require a provider to prove that there is a significant gap in the individual carrier’s service. If a carrier demonstrates the existence of a significant gap, it must then establish that the proposed site is the “least intrusive means” of filling that gap.
American Tower Corporation v. City of San Diego (2014)
When public notice is required by law, “shot clocks” (the 60-day time limit during which municipalities must approve or deny permit requests) do not apply if that public notice has not occurred per Cal. Gov't Code § 65956(b). If the permitting agency does not hold a noticed public hearing, the applicant can compel the agency to do so or provide public notice themselves.
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. FCC (2019)
Local governments can reject all permits until wireless carriers provide substantial written evidence that the FCC has written rules specific to “small” wireless telecommunications facilities “as a class” and has completed any required environmental and historic preservation review (per NEPA and NHPA) for the anticipated nationwide deployment of an 800,000-unit network of “small” cells of which those in Napa are only a part.
T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019)
California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 provides that telephone corporations may construct lines and erect equipment along public roads in ways and locations that do not “incommode [or disturb] the public use of the road.” Possible disturbances include not only the obstruction of traffic during installation but also long-term impacts, such as "noise, negative health consequences, and safety concerns". Municipalities can and must regulate the design and location of these antennas to “protect the public from the adverse impacts of utilities operations.”
GET INVOLVED
Email us to learn more about our work and how you can get involved.
